On 10/08, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> @@ -3520,11 +3522,26 @@ static int gcc_msm8960_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (IS_ERR(clk))
> return PTR_ERR(clk);
>
> - return qcom_cc_probe(pdev, match->data);
> + ret = qcom_cc_probe(pdev, match->data);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + tsens = platform_device_register_data(&pdev->dev, "qcom-tsens", -1,
> + NULL, 0);
> + if (IS_ERR(tsens)) {
> + qcom_cc_remove(pdev);
> + return PTR_ERR(tsens);
> + }
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, tsens);
We just blew away the pointer that qcom_cc_probe() stores.
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int gcc_msm8960_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> + struct platform_device *tsens = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + platform_device_unregister(tsens);
> qcom_cc_remove(pdev);
So now we've leaked the reset controller.
I suppose the simplest solution is to get the drvdata pointer
after qcom_cc_probe(), allocate a container structure to hold
that as a void * plus the tsens device, i.e.
struct container {
void *data;
struct platform_device *tsens;
};
and then set the drvdata to that. And finally undo all that and
restore the drvdata pointer on remove.
I've also been considering putting some devm stuff inside
qcom_cc_probe() itself so that in the normal case you don't even
need to call qcom_cc_remove(), it just gets done automatically.
That would open up the possibility for drivers to use the drvdata
member as they wish.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
