linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpufreq: tegra124: Allow building as a module

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2acf370d-a36f-463e-87dc-2198195cc81a@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 11:31:04 +0100
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpufreq: tegra124: Allow building as a module

On 13/05/2025 05:26, Aaron Kling wrote:

...

>>> +static void __exit tegra_cpufreq_module_exit(void)
>>> +{
>>> +     if (platform_device && !IS_ERR(platform_device))
>>> +             platform_device_unregister(platform_device);
>>
>> The device is unregistered in the remove. Why do we need this?
> 
> These are separate things, aren't they? What's unregistered in the
> remove is the cpufreq-dt device. And what's unregistered here is the
> tegra124-cpufreq device. Not the same thing, unless I'm really missing
> something.

Thanks for the correction. OK, but I am still not sure about patch 1/2.

Jon

-- 
nvpublic