On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 01:30:06PM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 20:21 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 11:09:48AM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 19:11 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:47:26AM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 17:22 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 05:50:12PM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > > > > +static struct pci_driver intel_vsec_pci_driver = {
> > > > > > > + .name = "intel_vsec",
> > > > > > > + .id_table = intel_vsec_pci_ids,
> > > > > > > + .probe = intel_vsec_pci_probe,
> > > > > > > +};
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So when the PCI device is removed from the system you leak resources and
> > > > > > have dangling devices?
> > > > >
> > > > > No.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why no PCI remove driver callback?
> > > > >
> > > > > After probe all resources are device managed. There's nothing to explicitly clean up. When
> > > > > the
> > > > > PCI
> > > > > device is removed, all aux devices are automatically removed. This is the case for the SDSi
> > > > > driver
> > > > > as well.
> > > >
> > > > Where is the "automatic cleanup" happening? As this pci driver is bound
> > > > to the PCI device, when the device is removed, what is called in this
> > > > driver to remove the resources allocated in the probe callback?
> > > >
> > > > confused,
> > >
> > > devm_add_action_or_reset(&pdev->dev, intel_vsec_remove_aux, auxdev)
> >
> > Wow that is opaque. Why not do it on remove instead?
>
> This code is common for auxdev cleanup. AFAICT most auxiliary bus code is done by drivers that have
> some other primary function. They clean up their primary function resources in remove, but they
> clean up the auxdev using the method above. In this case the sole purpose of this driver is to
> create the auxdev. There are no other resources beyond what the auxdev is using.
>
> Adding runtime pm to the pci driver will change this. Remove will be needed then.
And who will notice that being required when that happens?
Why is there no runtime PM for this driver? Do you not care about power
consumption? :)
thanks,
greg k-h
