Hello Wang, > 11 лист. 2022 р. о 11:21 wangyufen <wangyufen@xxxxxxxxxx> написав(ла): > > > 在 2022/11/9 18:43, Oleh Kravchenko 写道: >> >> >>> 9 лист. 2022 р. о 12:25 wangyufen <wangyufen@xxxxxxxxxx> написав(ла): >>> >>> >>> 在 2022/11/9 17:39, Oleh Kravchenko 写道: >>> >>>>> -static void el15203000_remove(struct spi_device *spi) >>>>> >>>> Is remove() callback from struct spi_driver deprecated? >>>> >>> It is not that remove() callback is deprecated, >>> it's that after wrapping mutex_destroy() call with devm_add_action_or_reset(), >>> remove() callback is unnecessary here. >>> >> When remove() is called, the memory allocated by devm_*() is valid. >> So what you try to fix here? > > Fix the &priv->lock used after destroy, for details, please see patch #0 > LKML: Wang Yufen: [PATCH 00/13] leds: Fix devm vs. non-devm ordering It doesn’t make any sense for me. You saying that remove() called before devm_* allocation if it true then set_brightness_delayed() will crash the system in anyway. LED device has a parent SPI device; LED device can’t exist without SPI device. So deallocation order should be next: 1. LED device devm_*() 2. SPI device remove()
