On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:26:01PM +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > >>>I think the explicit devm_free_irq() here is unnecessary, as when remove is > >>>called there should be no remaining users of the DMA controller and > >>>therefore > >>>no chance of an IRQ occurring between the controller being unregistered > >>>and an > >>>implicit IRQ release afterwards. > >Are you ensuring that device can no longer sent interrupts and all instances > >of tasklet running or either completed are terminated and no further tasklet > >can be spawned? > > Hi Vinod, > > If I understand correctly, when remove() is called, there should be > no more users of the DMA controller, enforced by the module > reference count. > > Wouldn't that guarantee that there are no more transactions running > and therefore no chance of an interrupt from the controller or a > tasklet still running?
That will only guarantee no new requests are recieved, but you may have tasklet already scheduled or irq sent from HW how do you prevent that? -- ~Vinod -- 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/
