On Thursday 12 December 2013 02:41 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 02:36:01PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Thursday 12 December 2013 12:48 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:11:36AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>>>> +static int kdwc3_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct dwc3_keystone *kdwc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + kdwc3_disable_irqs(kdwc);
>>>>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(kdwc->clk);
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope the clock isn't shared between core and wrapper, otherwise you
>>>>> could run into some troubles here. Can you confirm ?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes. the clock isn't shared. Thanks for taking care of other parts.
>>>
>>> so clock for core is always running too ?
>>>
>> I take that back. The clock is actually common so we should disable
>> it after removing the kdwc3_remove_core() as you suggested.
>>
>> You won't see issue since the kdwc3_remove_core() not doing
>> any register access but moving the clock disable after
>> the core remove is right thing to do.
>
> the problem is not kdwc3_remove_core() accessing registers, but
> dwc3_remove() _does_ access registers during remove. If you just
> mopdrobe -r dwc3-keystone without removing dwc3.ko first, then
> kdwc3_remove_core() will cause dwc3.ko to be removed (because of
> platform_driver_unregister()) and, since clocks have already been
> disabled, then we'd die :-)
>
Oh yes, you are right. I see Wingman already posted the updated patch.
Regards,
Santosh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
