On 24 Jun 05:06 PM, Darren Etheridge wrote:
>
> On 06/17/2014 09:17 AM, Guido Martínez wrote:
> >The TI tilcdc driver is designed with a notion of submodules. Currently,
> >at unload time, these submodules are iterated and destroyed.
> >
> >Now that the tilcdc remove order is fixed, this can be handled perfectly
>
> I am not sure I understand the first part of the above sentence - did
> something change with tilcdc ordering?
Yes, patch [PATCH/RESEND 6/9] drm/tilcdc: fix release order on exit changes
the tilcdc remove ordering.
Currently, the tilcdc DRM is removed with this:
tilcdc_tfp410_fini();
tilcdc_slave_fini();
tilcdc_panel_fini();
platform_driver_unregister(&tilcdc_platform_driver);
Which is wrong as you shouldn't remove the tilcdc "modules" (panel, slave,
tfp410) before the DRM driver itself. So the above patch fixed it to be:
platform_driver_unregister(&tilcdc_platform_driver);
tilcdc_panel_fini();
tilcdc_slave_fini();
tilcdc_tfp410_fini();
> I think you a referring to previous
> patches in your series which really mean tilcdc can actually unload now. So
> really the method this patch uses could always have been used, it just
> wasn't for some reason?
>
No, I believe this patch which removes the tilcdc sub-module destroy
infrastructure can only be applied *after* the above remove order is fixed
(iow, the 6/9 patch mentioned above).
In other words, only once you have a proper remove() that releases things
in the right order you can rely in the kernel and avoid any custom
implementation.
--
Ezequiel Garcia, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
