From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4FA02576.2060607@metafoo.de> Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 20:03:34 +0200 From: Lars-Peter Clausen MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Cameron CC: Ge Gao , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: different data rate in IIO ? References: <4F9FAAB9.7060003@metafoo.de> <4F9FE357.6050004@cam.ac.uk> <4F9FE632.3040308@metafoo.de> <4F9FEA37.5040107@cam.ac.uk> <4F9FEDC6.8070400@metafoo.de> <4F9FF002.2060900@metafoo.de> <4F9FF82E.80906@cam.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <4F9FF82E.80906@cam.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 List-ID: On 05/01/2012 04:50 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 5/1/2012 3:15 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >> On 05/01/2012 04:05 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >> [...] >> Ah, seems as if the refcounting infrastructure is already ready for >> use after >> we have called device_initialize, so the above plan should work quite >> well. >> Call device_del in iio_device_unregister and device_put in >> iio_device_free and >> free the struct in the release callback. > That makes sense given it just splits the two parts of device_unregister > apart. > Don't suppose you want to do the patch? I could write the patch, but I don't have a setup at hand right now where I could test it, so this would have to wait until next week. I wouldn't mind if you took care of it though :) - Lars