On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:18:06AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:50:28AM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:57:58 +0100 > > Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:36:31AM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I get this warning on shutdown. How to fix it properly? > > > > > > > > FYI, in my setup pxa2xx_spi is the parent for pxamci, set using > > > > this patch: > > > > http://git.openezx.org/openezx.git?a=commitdiff;h=0ffd85ad8faea3456d4ecf5f63ae65aca26fff21 > > > > > > This sounds like it's the cause of the problem - from the backtrace, it > > > looks like SPI expects the children of the SPI device to be its own > > > responsibility to maintain. > > > > > > Hence, because you've made pxamci a child of SPI, SPI is trying to > > > unregister and release the pxamci device. > > > > A little more background: we need pxamci to be a child of SPI because > > our PMIC is connected via SPI, and a PMIC regulator is used for mmc > > powering; enforcing this hierarchy is needed to make pxamci suspend and > > resume properly. > > I don't think this is the right solution - and I don't know what the > right solution would be given that the interfaces I suspect you need > aren't public. > > I don't think you can reverse the order of SPI and MMC initialization > because that'd mean MMC could try to use SPI before it exists. > > Maybe the right answer is for SPI to stop thinking it owns all child > devices, and only unregister devices which it owns (iow, are of some > SPI bus-type.) > > Adding Greg for comment.
Um, why not ask the SPI maintainer? I don't know what the SPI code is doing, sorry. thanks, greg k-h