On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Grant Likely > <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Very little for me to comment on here. However, something I just >> noticed. Why is it necessary to pass in THIS_MODULE to the >> rproc_register function? Having a reference to the pdev gives you the >> pointer to the driver, which has the THIS_MODULE value in it. That >> should be sufficient. > > Nice one, thanks ! > >> /me also isn't sure if incrementing the refcount on the module is the >> best way to prevent the rproc from going away, but I haven't dug into >> the details in the driver code to find out. Drivers can get unbound >> from devices without the driver being unloaded, so I imagine there is >> an in-use count on the device itself that would prevent driver >> unbinding. > > Yes, increasing the module refcount is necessary to prevent the user > from removing the driver when the rproc is used. That prevents removing the module which necessitates unbinding the device. However, I believe it is possible to unbind a driver /without/ the module being unloaded. My question (for which I don't have an answer) is whether or not there is a way to increment a refcount on users of the driver bound to the device.. g. -- 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
