On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:50 PM Aren <a...@peacevolution.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:56:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:06 PM Aren <a...@peacevolution.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 05:04:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 8:57 PM Aren Moynihan <a...@peacevolution.org> > > > > wrote:
... > > > > I forgot to check the order of freeing resources, be sure you have no > > > > devm_*() releases happening before this call. > > > > > > If I understand what you're saying, this should be fine. The driver just > > > uses devm to clean up acquired resources after remove is called. Or am I > > > missing something and resources could be freed before calling > > > stk3310_remove? > > > > I'm not objecting to that. The point here is that the resources should > > be freed in the reversed order. devm-allocated resources are deferred > > to be freed after the explicit driver ->remove() callback. At the end > > it should not interleave with each other, i.o.w. it should be > > probe: devm followed by non-devm > > remove: non-devm only. > > I think what you're describing is already the case, with the exception > of parts of the probe function not changed in this patch mixing > acquiring resources through devm with configuring the device. Okay, then we are fine! > I hope I'm not being dense, thanks for the clarification -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
