On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 09:32:18PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >> I think the reason of our misunderstanding is due to the name of >> input_free_device call. From the code, it is device destroy function, >> and the freeing itself done as an error handling of >> input_register_device >> (http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/input/input.c#L2114). > >> How do you think we need to proceed? Do I need to send patches with >> explicit call to input_free_device function? > > I really think the input API needs to be looked at here, this is all way > too error prone. Calling input_free_device() on something allocated > using devm_ looks like an error itself... In general, I agree with you, but I think we both agree that the current patch is not working as expected. The problem is that you allocated device with devm_ and later at the code you tried to register it, but failed. In this case no one will call to devres_destroy, because it is done at unregister stage only. I see two possible solutions: 1. short one - fix your patches 2. long one - add input_free_device code into input_register_device call (http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/input/input.c#L2114). -- Leon Romanovsky | Independent Linux Consultant www.leon.nu | leon@xxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
