Hello Andy.
2014-02-24 17:08 GMT+04:00 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 15:09 +0400, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> @@ -1018,11 +1019,23 @@ static int mpc_dma_probe(struct platform_device *op)
>> /* Register DMA engine */
>> dev_set_drvdata(dev, mdma);
>> retval = dma_async_device_register(dma);
>> - if (retval) {
>> - devm_free_irq(dev, mdma->irq, mdma);
>> - irq_dispose_mapping(mdma->irq);
>> + if (retval)
>> + goto out_irq;
>> +
>> + /* register with OF helpers for DMA lookups (nonfatal) */
>> + if (dev->of_node) {
>> + retval = of_dma_controller_register(dev->of_node,
>> + of_dma_xlate_by_chan_id,
>> + mdma);
>> + if (retval)
>> + dev_warn(dev, "could not register for OF lookup\n");
>> }
>>
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +out_irq:
>> + devm_free_irq(dev, mdma->irq, mdma);
>
> Something wrong either with devm_request_irq() or you don't need to call
> devm_free_irq() explicitly. Once we already try to discuss this earlier
> in this mailing list with Lars-Peter(?), though there were no solution
> how to keep devm_*_irq usability.
Thanks, I've read this discussion. It seems that the current code doesn't do
anything bad, though devm_request_irq() and devm_free_irq() can be changed
to request_irq() and free_irq() accordingly. Do you think it's worth being done
in a separate patch in this series?
>> + irq_dispose_mapping(mdma->irq);
>> return retval;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1031,6 +1044,8 @@ static int mpc_dma_remove(struct platform_device *op)
>> struct device *dev = &op->dev;
>> struct mpc_dma *mdma = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>
>> + if (dev->of_node)
>> + of_dma_controller_free(dev->of_node);
>> dma_async_device_unregister(&mdma->dma);
>> devm_free_irq(dev, mdma->irq, mdma);
>> irq_dispose_mapping(mdma->irq);
Best regards,
Alexander
--
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
