[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200930063435.GC16460@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 23:34:36 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc: thierry.reding@...il.com, joro@...tes.org, krzk@...nel.org,
vdumpa@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] iommu/tegra-smmu: Rework .probe_device and
.attach_dev
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:20:50AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 30.09.2020 08:10, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> > 30.09.2020 03:30, Nicolin Chen пишет:
> >> static void tegra_smmu_release_device(struct device *dev)
> >
> > The tegra_get_memory_controller() uses of_find_device_by_node(), hence
> > tegra_smmu_release_device() should put_device(mc) in order to balance
> > back the refcounting.
> >
>
> Actually, the put_device(mc) should be right after
> tegra_get_memory_controller() in tegra_smmu_probe_device() because SMMU
> is a part of MC, hence MC can't just go away.
Hmm..I found that there is no put_device() call in tegra20-devfreq.
Should we just put_device(pdev->dev) in tegra_get_memory_controller?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists