Hi Vinod,
On 24 October 2012 09:44, Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 15:47 +0530, Inderpal Singh wrote:
>> Since peripheral channel resources are not being allocated at probe,
>> no need to flush the channels and free the resources in remove function.
>> In case, the channel is in use by some client, return EBUSY.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh <inderpal.singh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/dma/pl330.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/pl330.c b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
>> index bf71ff7..4b7a34d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma/pl330.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma/pl330.c
>> @@ -3009,18 +3009,21 @@ static int __devexit pl330_remove(struct amba_device *adev)
>> if (!pdmac)
>> return 0;
>>
>> + /* check if any client is using any channel */
>> + list_for_each_entry(pch, &pdmac->ddma.channels,
>> + chan.device_node) {
>> +
>> + if (pch->chan.client_count)
>> + return -EBUSY;
>> + }
>> +
>> while (!list_empty(&pdmac->desc_pool)) {
>
> Did you get this code executed?
> I think No.
>
> The dmaengine holds the reference to channels, so if they are in use and
> not freed by client your remove wont be called. So this check is
> redundant
>
This code will get executed only in case of force removal of the
module which was discussed in the first version of the patch at [1].
Now, if we do not have to think about force removal then this patch
will go back to the first version.
Let me know your view.
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1503171/
Regards,
Inder
> --
> Vinod Koul
> Intel Corp.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
