[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150723172110.GB29916@localhost>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:51:10 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To: Alex Smith <alex.smith@...tec.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Zubair.Kakakhel@...tec.com,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: question about drivers/dma/dma-jz4780.c
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:26:01PM +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> >>>I think the explicit devm_free_irq() here is unnecessary, as when remove is
> >>>called there should be no remaining users of the DMA controller and therefore
> >>>no chance of an IRQ occurring between the controller being unregistered and an
> >>>implicit IRQ release afterwards.
> >Are you ensuring that device can no longer sent interrupts and all instances
> >of tasklet running or either completed are terminated and no further tasklet
> >can be spawned?
>
> Hi Vinod,
>
> If I understand correctly, when remove() is called, there should be
> no more users of the DMA controller, enforced by the module
> reference count.
>
> Wouldn't that guarantee that there are no more transactions running
> and therefore no chance of an interrupt from the controller or a
> tasklet still running?
That will only guarantee no new requests are recieved, but you may have
tasklet already scheduled or irq sent from HW how do you prevent that?
--
~Vinod
--
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