On 01/29/2014 02:52 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
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 ;)
OK - we'll have some more on the way in a bit.
+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.
I went back and double checked. This was correct, it was page_start
that was bogus. Yesterday's patch fixed that.
--
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
