On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:00:32AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > @@ -108,32 +108,27 @@ static int dw_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return irq; /* -ENXIO */
> > }
> >
> > - ioarea = request_mem_region(mem->start, resource_size(mem),
> > - pdev->name);
> > - if (!ioarea) {
> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "I2C region already claimed\n");
> > - return -EBUSY;
> > - }
> > + dev = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct dw_i2c_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!dev)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - dev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct dw_i2c_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!dev) {
> > - r = -ENOMEM;
> > - goto err_release_region;
> > + dev->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, mem);
> > + if (IS_ERR(dev->base)) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "I2C region already claimed\n");
>
> No dev_err here. The devm function will print out errors already.
OK
> > @@ -164,13 +152,14 @@ static int dw_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > }
> > r = i2c_dw_init(dev);
> > if (r)
> > - goto err_iounmap;
> > + return r;
> >
> > i2c_dw_disable_int(dev);
> > - r = request_irq(dev->irq, i2c_dw_isr, IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
> > + r = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, dev->irq, i2c_dw_isr, IRQF_SHARED,
> > + pdev->name, dev);
>
> Is it ensured that no interrupts will happen during remove? Because the
> adapter will be deleted before devm will free the interrupt.
Both platform and PCI driver disable the controller in their remove
function, and interrupts will be disabled as well. Is this enough or should
we handle this differently?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
