On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
> driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
> remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
> platform_driver_probe() which
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:32:13PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> For a bool driver of this type (typically compiled in and probed
>> at boot) that makes most sense to me.
>
> Hmm, I do not think this is a good justification for disabling
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:32:13PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
For a bool driver of this type (typically compiled in and probed
at boot) that makes most sense to me.
Hmm, I do not think this is a good
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:32:13PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Even if bus is not
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
>> > driver via sysfs, so we should
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:32:13PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> wrote:
>
> > Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
> > driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
> > remove() methods. The
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
remove()
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
> driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
> remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
> platform_driver_probe() which
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
platform_driver_probe() which specifically disables sysfs bind/unbind
attributes.
Signed-off-by:
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
platform_driver_probe() which specifically disables sysfs bind/unbind
attributes.
Signed-off-by:
14 matches
Mail list logo