On 10 September 2014 17:58, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Viresh Kumar, > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:52:59 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 10 September 2014 17:38, Thomas Petazzoni >> <thomas.petazzoni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > + dt_cpufreq_driver.driver_data = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev); >> >> I don't think this is right. What if platform device's platform data >> is freed later? >> That's why its always better to duplicate that structure instead of playing with >> pointers. > > Isn't the piece of code registering the platform_device supposed to > make sure that platform_data doesn't disappear? At least, in PATCH 3/4, I don't know. I remember this from the days when I used to write individual drivers for SPEAr platform... Its been some time now that I have seen this :) > I'm using platform_device_register_data(), which does a kmemdup() of > the custom data being passed before assigning the struct > device->platform_data field. Atleast in your case it isn't required to copy anymore but this driver can be used by others which may not guarantee that.. > But if you like, I can add one more memory copy :) Its not what I like, as wasting memory isn't sensible at all.. But about what's the right thing to do to make this code un-breakable.. @Arnd: Any inputs? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
