On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:30:01PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > No release type? Oh that's bad bad bad and implies you have never > > > > removed a device from your system as the kernel would have complained > > > > loudly at you. > > > > > > You got me, never tried to remove a device :-). Note that these > > > ->release() hooks will just be dummy ones, because right now, device > > > resources are freed at bus destruction time. > > > > You better not have a "dummy" release hook, do that and as per the > > kernel documentation, I get to make fun of you in public for doing that > > :( > > I'm not afraid of admitting I don't know everything, even the > simplest things that you consider as basics for a kernel developer. You > can make fun of me publicly if you want but that's not helping :-P. No, I am referring to the Documentation/kobject.txt file, where it says: One important point cannot be overstated: every kobject must have a release() method, and the kobject must persist (in a consistent state) until that method is called. If these constraints are not met, the code is flawed. Note that the kernel will warn you if you forget to provide a release() method. Do not try to get rid of this warning by providing an "empty" release function; you will be mocked mercilessly by the kobject maintainer if you attempt this. Sometimes I wonder why I even write documentation... The point is, you have to release the memory the device structure "owns" in the release callback, if not, then the model is not correct. That's all, please fix up your code to do so and I will be glad to review it again. I'm not trying to be rude here at all, but please, at the least, read the documentation we have already first... thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
