On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:05:53PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:06:33AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> [ big snip ]
>
> > > > +static int __devexit smsc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > >
> > > shouldn't you unregister the input device here ??
> >
> > And that is why I do not like devm_* interface myself... But no, since
> > input device was allocated with devm_input_allocate_device() it does not
> > need to be explicitly freed or unregistered.
>
> IMHO, that's a fragility on current devm implementation for input
> devices, then.
>
> devm_input_allocate_device() is *only* allocating the input device (at
> least judging by the name). Looks like you should introduce
> devm_input_register_device() ? What happens if I
> devm_input_allocate_device() but don't go as far as
> input_register_device() (some error happens in-between) ?
>
It will be freed automatically.
> I'm sure you have some proper handling for it, but it's quite misleading
> the way this was implemented.
Well, I could add devm_input_register_device(),
devm_input_unregister_device(), devm_input_free_device() and then add
checks to "normal" input_register_device(), input_unregister_device()
and input_free_device() to throw warnings and errors if they are used
with managed resources, and similarly add checks to devm_* API so that
they are not called with unmanaged devices and make a big mess out of
it.
_OR_ I could just add one new call devm_input_allocate_device() to
create managed input devices and make the rest of old API work with both
managed and unmanaged input devices. I think the latter is much better.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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
