[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5630CECE.2000600@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:34:06 +0000
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
CC: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
"Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
<dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] dmaengine: tegra-apb: Disable interrupts on removal
On 28/10/15 06:53, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:02AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>> How about just calling free_irq()? That's how you'd typically handle this.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, however, the interrupt is requested by devm_request_irq(). I guess
>>>> I could call devm_free_irq() here?
>>>
>>> Just use request_irq() instead of devm_request_irq(). You have the same
>>> issue on the error path in the probe function anyway and also need to add
>>> the free_irq() before the tasklet_kill() there as well.
>>
>> I was wondering about that but the tasklets should never be scheduled if
>> the probe does not succeed, so I think it is ok.
>
> This is actually very racy, if probe fails but due to devm_ calls your irq
> is alive till it freed by core
>
> And a faulty device triggering irq can complicate matters, so for irq IMHO
> we don't get much benefit with devm_ variant
That's fine, I will drop the devm_ usage here then.
Jon
--
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