On Wednesday 22 July 2015 12:16 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 22.07.2015 15:27, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
On Wednesday 22 July 2015 02:22 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/21/2015 12:36 PM, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
On Wednesday 22 July 2015 12:40 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/21/2015 04:07 AM, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
+
<snip>
+static int pm800_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct pm800_clk *pm800_clks = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+ int i;
+
+ of_clk_del_provider(pm800_clks[0].clk_np);
+ /* Drop the reference obtained in pm800_clk_parse_dt */
+ of_node_put(pm800_clks[0].clk_np);
This is odd. Why are we keeping the reference in the driver?
Honestly I do not have any good answer here. I have to admit that it is
getting carry forwarded from legacy driver.
Well we shouldn't do things if we don't know why we're doing them.
Krzysztof?
I am really busy now so I am not following closely other discussions. I
assume you are referring to clk-s2mps11.c. The of_node_put() matches
of_get_child_by_name() when parsing DT.
So why not of_node_put() just after parsing DT? Well, the result of
of_get_child_by_name() is stored in state container for entire device
life-cycle so we can use it in of_clk_del_provider().
That was the idea behind it. If it looks incorrect I would be happy to
see a patch :) .
About to respond, I digged more on kobject stuff and sequence in
of/dynamic.c and
I think you are right, we need of_node_put, as a result of
of_get_child_by_name().
Stephen,
Please let me know if you think otherwise.
Thanks,
Vaibhav
--
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/
