On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:26:42AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> So this allows me to test a bit more... and there's more bad news.
> On re-inserting this module...
> Looks like removing and re-inserting these modules has never been
> tested. :( And oh my...
> static int omap_mcpdm_probe(struct snd_soc_dai *dai)
> {
> ret = devm_request_irq(mcpdm->dev, mcpdm->irq, omap_mcpdm_irq_handler,
> 0, "McPDM", (void *)mcpdm);
> static struct snd_soc_dai_driver omap_mcpdm_dai = {
> .probe = omap_mcpdm_probe,
> .remove = omap_mcpdm_remove,
> Using devm_* stuff in a context where it doesn't get automatically
> freed when the DAI driver is unbound, and nothing in omap_mcpdm_remove()
> to undo that request.
Yes, that's obviously bad - and in any case we should request resources
at the device model level regardless of that.
> I suspect that isn't the full story though, because of the regmap
> complaint (which I've not even looked at yet.)
Missed that one?
> Maybe we should have a test mode in the kernel where every device
> goes through a bind-unbind-rebind sequence during boot to test more
> of these paths...
That actually came up independently the other day during the Kernel
Summit discussions, Rob Herring gave it a bit of a go but I'm not sure
if he did it with a view to upstreaming or anything. It's definitely a
good idea, as I said on that thread I think deferred probe has been one
of the best things to ever happen to kernel error handling and this
would just extend it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
