On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shish...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chun...@linaro.org> writes: > >> It would be broken if stm_data->sw_start isn't zero, because that >> stp_master_free() get the 'master' with __stm_master()/stm_master(), >> in which the masterID is the second input parameter minus >> stm_data->sw_start. So freeing STM masters has to start from >> stm_data->sw_start. > > No, it won't. stm_master_free() handles nonexistent masters correctly. > It does make sense to shrink the loop in stm_unregister_device() to > avoid going through the [0..sw_start) range, since stm_master() returns > NULL for those, but not for the reasons given in this patch description.
Let's assume sw_start = 64, sw_end = 79, sw_nmasters should be 16, if the loop goes through [0..16), the existed masters will not be freed. That's what I wanted to address in this patch. I meant the number of loop in stm_unregister_device() is correct, but the start index isn't. Sorry for not describing clear enough in the patch logs. Thanks, Chunyan > > Regards, > -- > Alex
