[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140403114847.GQ1665@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 12:48:47 +0100
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: lgirdwood@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Get and put regulator of_node
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:14:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:58:04AM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > The main issue I have is that devm_regualtor_register is a bit
> > awkward. With regulator_register you will always be calling
> > regulator_unregister so you can put the of_node there but with
> > devm there isn't really a good place to put the of_node.
>
> That's why I suggested it might be OK to take a reference in the core -
> this would allow the device probe to safely drop its reference before it
> returns.
>
> > Would perhaps a sensible thing here be to add an of_node_get to
> > of_regulator_match, since we seem to be expecting that to
> > increase the ref count. And then just add an of_node_put to
> > regulator_unregister. And for anything directly using
> > regulator_register/devm_regulator_register they should add a
> > manual of_node_get?
>
> That seems very ugly.
Agreed, it is not exactly made of clean interface success. So I
guess the sensible thing is to add a helper to clean up the
of_regulator_match results and add the node get in the regulator
core as per my original patch. I will fix up the commit message
for it and do patches for the other bits.
Thanks,
Charles
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists