From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:35388 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754493Ab3JXKen (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:34:43 -0400 Message-ID: <5268F7BD.2010508@linutronix.de> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:34:37 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lars-Peter Clausen CC: Jonathan Cameron , Felipe Balbi , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iio: adc: ti_am335x_adc: do not free the kfifo twice References: <9ctn6ye3lkct930eq1ivw2wc.1382550258829@email.android.com> <5268F2C9.5010104@kernel.org> <5268E773.3020507@linutronix.de> <5268EB39.7010208@metafoo.de> In-Reply-To: <5268EB39.7010208@metafoo.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On 10/24/2013 11:41 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > The driver seems to be missing the iio_buffer_attach() call. Something like > this should fix the problem: > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c > index ef54d8a..bf9c89c 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c > @@ -229,12 +229,15 @@ static int tiadc_iio_buffered_hardware_setup(struct > iio_dev *indio_dev, > unsigned long flags, > const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops *setup_ops) > { > + struct iio_buffer *buffer; > int ret; > > - indio_dev->buffer = iio_kfifo_allocate(indio_dev); > - if (!indio_dev->buffer) > + buffer = iio_kfifo_allocate(indio_dev); > + if (!buffer) > return -ENOMEM; > > + iio_device_attach_buffer(indio_dev, buffer); > + > ret = request_threaded_irq(irq, pollfunc_th, pollfunc_bh, > flags, indio_dev->name, indio_dev); > if (ret) Yep, that works, thanks. Shouldn't the two tiadc_iio_buffered_hardware_remove(indio_dev); tiadc_channels_remove(indio_dev); in tiadc_remove() be reversed in their call order? The second alter is accessing the buffer which is released by the former one. btw: is all this ref counting really required? I mean I would assume allocate buffer in one place (at probe time) release it remove time should be enough. Sebastian