On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 15 May 2014 10:02, Inderpal Singh <inderpa...@samsung.com> wrote: >> I feel freeing of opps are needed at least at the driver unregistration >> time, like we free cpufreq_table. >> Otherwise it amounts to memory leak unless we assume that the same driver is >> going to re-register and re-use the same opps. > > Its memory leak only if we have lost the pointer to allocated memory, which > we haven't. Yes, it will keep occupying some space but there is only > one instance > of that per 'cluster' and is very much affordable instead of building it > again.. > > There is a high chance that it will be used again by this or any other driver, > cpufreq or outside of it. > > But, yes I do agree that the OPPs not added from dts, i.e. added from > platform should be freed when they don't make a sense. But that's a different > issue altogether.
What i am saying that "what if we are not going to re-use again ? " I am not sure if its practical. Also, I feel the driver who created the opp table at its registration time should free it at its unregistration. Isn't it true in general? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/