From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752641Ab2GRFmN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:42:13 -0400 Received: from hqemgate03.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.140]:15713 "EHLO hqemgate03.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751019Ab2GRFmD (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:42:03 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:37:54 -0700 Message-ID: <50064AA7.3020508@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:03:27 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: "grant.likely@secretlab.ca" , "linus.walleij@stericsson.com" , "sameo@linux.intel.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/6] mfd: tps6586x:use devm managed resources References: <1342421510-10638-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1342421510-10638-2-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20120716200110.GD10774@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <5004ED3F.4080601@nvidia.com> <20120717165346.GH4477@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20120717165346.GH4477@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 17 July 2012 10:23 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:12:39AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Tuesday 17 July 2012 01:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:21:45PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > >> I think device_remove will get called before the managed resource >> get freed. >> So do we need to call disable_irq() in remove() to avoid any interrupts? > That would be very rude if the IRQ happened to get shared, though that's > not possible at the moment. In general it's pretty hard to use devm_ > IRQs safely, it's normally safest to avoid them due to the issues with > ensuring that the interrupt handler is safe to be called even while the > device is being torn down. OK, then I will revert this specific change if it is not safe. I will send the another patch (part of series v3 1/6) for this change only.