On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 13:51 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:34:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 12:09 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > Since clk_register_clkdev() is exported for modules the caller should > > > > get a > > > > pointer to the allocated resources. Otherwise the memory leak is > > > > guaranteed on > > > > the ->remove() stage. > > > > > > clk_register_clkdev() is there to assist mass clock registrations, which > > > typically happen in platform code. It's there to simplify the "I need > > > to register this clock which I'm not going to release again". > > > > > > I don't see any of these locations trying to unregister their clk from > > > clkdev, so I doubt this patch is needed. > > > > We are doing the driver which will use this (as I mentioned in the cover > > letter). > > > > > > > > Where a module wants to remove its clk from clkdev, it should register > > > its clk with clkdev_create() and remove it with clkdev_drop(). > > > > > > > You are talking about something in the wild? I can't find > > clkdev_create() neither in current clk.git nor in linux-next.git. > > It'll be in linux-next RSN. > > Search lakml for "Fix fallout from per-user struct clk patches" >
Thanks, we will use it, though the documentation might say that there is a risk of memory leak in case of usage clk_register_clkdev(). -- Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
