On 05/30/12 05:38, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> - /* the rproc will only be released after its refcount drops to zero */ >>> - kref_put(&rproc->refcount, rproc_release); >>> + /* unroll rproc_alloc. TODO: we may want to let the users do that */ >>> + put_device(&rproc->dev); >> Yes I think we want rproc_free() to actually call put_device() the last >> time and free the resources. > Yeah that was one of the options I considered. > > In general, we have three options here: > 1. Remove this last put_device invocation, and require users to call > rproc_free() even after they call rproc_unregister(). > 2. Let rproc_unregister() still do this, by calling rproc_free(). > 3. Let rproc_unregister() still do this, by invoking put_device(). > > I think that (1) looks better since it makes the interface symmetric > and straight forward. > > (2) and (3) may be simper because users only need to call > rproc_unregister and that's it. > > I eventually decided against (1) because I was concerned it will only > confuse users at this point. > > But if you think that (1) is nicer too then maybe we should go ahead > and do that change. Option 1 is nicer and it also follows the model other subsystems have put forth such as the input subsystem. -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- 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
