On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 1:50 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 01:04:29PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:49 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 05:45:39PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > We're currently creating chips at module init time only so using a > > > > static index for dummy devices is fine. We want to support dynamically > > > > created chips however so we need to switch to dynamic device IDs. > > > > > > It misses ida_destroy(). > > > > No, we always call ida_free() for separate IDs when removing devices > > and we remove all devices at module exit so no need to call > > ida_destroy(). > > Perhaps couple of words about this in the commit message? > But ida_destroy() and ida_free() are already well documented. It's clear that we remove all devices at exit and that every device removes its ID, there's really no point in mentioning it again. Bart