On 09/21/2015 11:53 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>
> On 21 September 2015 09:18:39 BST, Karol Wrona <k.wrona@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 09/20/2015 09:18 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On 14/09/15 17:08, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>>>> Use resourced managed function devm_iio_device_register to
>>>> make error path simpler. To be compatible with the change,
>>>> the remove function is removed as it is now redundant.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar <vthakkar1994@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> This patch is reasonable, but makes me wonder if there is an issue
>>> in the remove path for this driver. It relies on the ssp_sensors
>> common
>>> module. That in ssp_spi.c uses the fact ssp_register_consumer
>>> has saved the struct iio_dev into a local array in the core driver.
>>> I think this means that a remove of this function will leave a
>> possible
>>> null pointer de reference.
>> You are right. In this case we need something like
>> ssp_deregister_consumer(...) in ssp_dev.c. So I think that "remove
>> func"
>> should stay. Of course we can switch to devm iio register.
> Not if you want to remove the userspace interface before doing you new function call. Doing so gives a nasty race.
So better leave it out:
iio_device_unregister(indio_dev) will disable the buffers and through
ops disables the sensor and than remove iio dev ptr from the internal table.
>>
>> Also the same can (rather should) be done for accelerometer sensor
>> (ssp_accel_sensor.c).
>>
>> Vaishali, if you want please feel free and send patch.
>>
>>>
>>> Now I suspect that case doesn't actually occur because the relevant
>>> device elements are disabled whenever this module is removed. Having
>>> said that we might expect an ssp_unregister_consumer function that
>>> sets the relevant pointer back to null on removal so as to avoid
>>> any possible race conditions around driver removal / reprobing.
>>> A spot of defensive programming rather than necessarily a bug to be
>>> fixed!
>>>
>>> One little process thing. This driver was written by Karol so patches
>>> should probably always cc Karol as well as the more general
>>> maintainer / reviewers for IIO. Added cc.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/iio/gyro/ssp_gyro_sensor.c | 12 +-----------
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/gyro/ssp_gyro_sensor.c
>> b/drivers/iio/gyro/ssp_gyro_sensor.c
>>>> index 0a8afdd..ac88de7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/gyro/ssp_gyro_sensor.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/gyro/ssp_gyro_sensor.c
>>>> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static int ssp_gyro_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>>>>
>>>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, indio_dev);
>>>>
>>>> - ret = iio_device_register(indio_dev);
>>>> + ret = devm_iio_device_register(&pdev->dev, indio_dev);
>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>> return ret;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -144,21 +144,11 @@ static int ssp_gyro_probe(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static int ssp_gyro_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> -{
>>>> - struct iio_dev *indio_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>> -
>>>> - iio_device_unregister(indio_dev);
>>>> -
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>> static struct platform_driver ssp_gyro_driver = {
>>>> .driver = {
>>>> .name = SSP_GYROSCOPE_NAME,
>>>> },
>>>> .probe = ssp_gyro_probe,
>>>> - .remove = ssp_gyro_remove,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> module_platform_driver(ssp_gyro_driver);
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio"
>> in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
