Re: [PATCH v2] iio: adc: exynos: do not rely on 'users' counter in ISR

2020-10-06 Thread dmitry . torokhov
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:39:07PM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 09:12:14PM -0700, dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote: > > The order in which 'users' counter is decremented vs calling drivers' > > close() method is implementation specific, and we should not rely on > > it.

Re: [PATCH v2] iio: adc: exynos: do not rely on 'users' counter in ISR

2020-10-06 Thread Michał Mirosław
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 09:12:14PM -0700, dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote: > The order in which 'users' counter is decremented vs calling drivers' > close() method is implementation specific, and we should not rely on > it. Let's introduce driver private flag and use it to signal ISR > to exit

Re: [PATCH v2] iio: adc: exynos: do not rely on 'users' counter in ISR

2020-10-06 Thread Krzysztof Kozlowski
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 06:12, wrote: > > The order in which 'users' counter is decremented vs calling drivers' > close() method is implementation specific, and we should not rely on > it. Let's introduce driver private flag and use it to signal ISR > to exit when device is being closed. > > This

[PATCH v2] iio: adc: exynos: do not rely on 'users' counter in ISR

2020-10-05 Thread dmitry . torokhov
The order in which 'users' counter is decremented vs calling drivers' close() method is implementation specific, and we should not rely on it. Let's introduce driver private flag and use it to signal ISR to exit when device is being closed. This has a side-effect of fixing issue of accessing