On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:26:01PM +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > > > >>>I think the explicit devm_free_irq() here is unnecessary, as when remove is > > >>>called there should be no remaining users of the DMA controller and therefore > > >>>no chance of an IRQ occurring between the controller being unregistered and an > > >>>implicit IRQ release afterwards. > > >Are you ensuring that device can no longer sent interrupts and all instances > > >of tasklet running or either completed are terminated and no further tasklet > > >can be spawned? > > > > Hi Vinod, > > > > If I understand correctly, when remove() is called, there should be > > no more users of the DMA controller, enforced by the module > > reference count. > > > > Wouldn't that guarantee that there are no more transactions running > > and therefore no chance of an interrupt from the controller or a > > tasklet still running? > > That will only guarantee no new requests are recieved, but you may have > tasklet already scheduled or irq sent from HW how do you prevent that? More genrally, I have seen another driver with synchronize_irq in the remove function (dma/img-mdc-dma.c). Would that be safe enough? On the other hand, if one is going to go to the trouble of putting that, maybe one would do just as well to drop the devm for irqs and use free_irq in place of synchronize_irq instead? thanks, julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
