On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:30:48PM +0000, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> Sorry for the delay on this. The mail problems from earlier this week continue to plague me.
>
> On 01/26/2014 10:36 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Christopher,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:53:34PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> >>
> >> err_free_data:
> >> + rmi_free_function_list(rmi_dev);
> >> + if (gpio_is_valid(pdata->attn_gpio))
> >> + gpio_free(pdata->attn_gpio);
> >> + devm_kfree(&rmi_dev->dev, data->irq_status);
> >> + devm_kfree(&rmi_dev->dev, data->current_irq_mask);
> >> + devm_kfree(&rmi_dev->dev, data->irq_mask_store);
> >> + devm_kfree(&rmi_dev->dev, data);
> >
> > It is rarely makes sense to explicitly free devm-managed data. In
> > general I find that RMI code is very confused about when devm-managed
> > resources are released (they only released after failed probe or remove,
> > but we use devm_kzalloc to allocate function's interrupt masks during
> > device creation and they will get freed only when parent unbinds, etc).
>
> Yeah, we've gotten a metric ton of confusing advice/recommendations
> regarding devm_* (most of it offline from linux-input) and it shows.
> At one point I was pretty much ready to just bag it all and write our
> own garbage collecting storage manager, but figured that would be
> unlikely to make it upstream :-)
Yeah, some people see mistake screws for nails when they get a hold of a
hammer. Managed resources are nice as long as you have clear
understanding on what happens.
>
> > Given that you mentioned firmware flash in the work and I expect we'll
> > be destroying and re-creating functions and other data structures at
> > will I think we should limit use of devm APIs so that lifetime
> > management is explicit and clear.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > I tried adjusting the patch so that it works with the version of PDT
> > cleanup patch I posted a few minutes ago, please let me know what you
> > think.
>
> There's some comments below. After making those changes, I've applied this to my test tree, and it works well.
>
> I can send updated versions of your two patches, if you'd like.
Yes, please, I always prefer applying something that was tested. You
can also sent more of the pending stuff my way, no need to limit to 1
patch at a time - I usually able to cherry-pick patches that I do not
have questions about and we can work on ones that I need some
clarification on. Just don't mailbomb me with 100 ;)
> > +static int rmi_check_bootloader_mode(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev,
> > + const struct pdt_entry *pdt)
> > +{
> > + int error;
> > + u8 device_status;
> > +
> > + error = rmi_read(rmi_dev, pdt->data_base_addr + pdt->page_start,
> > + &device_status);
>
> Since this is applied after your previous patch, then this statement should be:
> error = rmi_read(rmi_dev, pdt->data_base_addr, &device_status);
Hmm, I did not think I adjusted data_base_addr in PDT, I only stored the
page start in there... The updated addresses as in function
structures.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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
