On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:45 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:33:34PM +0800, Hsin-chen Chuang wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 8:10 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post > > > Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting? > > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > > > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > > > A: Top-posting. > > > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > > > > > A: No. > > > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? > > > > > > http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 07:57:15PM +0800, Hsin-chen Chuang wrote: > > > > The btusb driver data is allocated by devm_kzalloc and is > > > > automatically freed on driver detach, so I guess we don't have > > > > anything to do here. > > > > > > What? A struct device should NEVER be allocated with devm_kzalloc. > > > That's just not going to work at all. > > > > Noted. Perhaps that needs to be refactored together. > > > > > > > > > Or perhaps we should move btusb_disconnect's content here? Luiz, what > > > > do you think? > > > > > > I think something is really wrong here. Why are you adding a new struct > > > device to the system? What requires that? What is this new device > > > going to be used for? > > > > The new device is only for exposing a new sysfs attribute. > > That feels crazy. > > > So originally we had a device called hci_dev, indicating the > > implementation of the Bluetooth HCI layer. hci_dev is directly the > > child of the usb_interface (the Bluetooth chip connected through USB). > > Now I would like to add an attribute for something that's not defined > > in the HCI layer, but lower layer only in Bluetooth USB. > > Thus we want to rephrase the structure: usb_interface -> btusb (new > > device) -> hci_dev, and then we could place the new attribute in the > > new device. > > > > Basically I kept the memory management in btusb unchanged in this > > patch, as the new device is only used for a new attribute. > > Would you suggest we revise the memory management since we added a > > device in this module? > > If you add a new device in the tree, it HAS to work properly with the > driver core (i.e. life cycles are unique, you can't have empty release > functions, etc.) Put it on the proper bus it belongs to, bind the > needed drivers to it, and have it work that way, don't make a "fake" > device for no good reason. Got it. Thanks for the info. Hi Luiz, I will work on v5 to make btusb resources managed by device. Any concern? > > thanks, > > greg k-h -- Best Regards, Hsin-chen
