On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:22:56 -0500 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 01:30:23PM -0500, tedheadster wrote: > > > I think this driver should either not be considered 'platform' or it > > > should make a call to free_irq() on failures. > > > > > > > The question is: who is responsible to free an irq from a device > > registered using platform_device_register_simple()? Is it the driver > > or the platform code? > > Sorry, I wasn't clear. There's a rudimentary garbage collector devm > which tracks all the resources associated with a device. The previous > patch that I sent you which created an explict resource group and > released it uses the same mechanism. When any device gets destroyed, > it should release all associated resources and I was wondering why > that wasn't happening without the explicit group operations. I'll > write up a debug patch to track down what's going on. Almost certainly libata leaking a reference to the device so it doesn't think it's gone away. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
