From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: Intel: sst-acpi: Request firmware before SST platform driver probing Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:57:53 +0200 Message-ID: <530455F1.5000309@linux.intel.com> References: <1392734523-5109-1-git-send-email-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com> <1392734523-5109-2-git-send-email-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E872652C1 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:57:58 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Liam Girdwood , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi On 02/18/2014 04:58 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:42:03 +0200, > Jarkko Nikula wrote: >> >> -sst_err: >> - platform_device_unregister(sst_acpi->pdev_pcm); >> - return ret; >> + /* continue SST probing after firmware is loaded */ >> + return request_firmware_nowait(THIS_MODULE, true, desc->fw_filename, >> + dev, GFP_KERNEL, pdev, sst_acpi_fw_cb); > sst_acpi->pdev_mach still should be unregistered when > request_firmware_nowait() returns an error. I was thinking to leave that for sst_acpi_remove but you are right, it doesn't make sense to leave it registered for instance if request_firmware_nowait fails because of -ENOMEM or some other fatal issue. >> } >> >> static int sst_acpi_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> { >> struct sst_acpi_priv *sst_acpi = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); >> + struct sst_pdata *sst_pdata = &sst_acpi->sst_pdata; >> >> platform_device_unregister(sst_acpi->pdev_mach); >> platform_device_unregister(sst_acpi->pdev_pcm); > With your patch, pdev_pcm isn't always a valid pointer. You can't > pass it unconditionally any longer. > I felt it was needless to test NULL pointers here since release_firmware checks it directly and platform_device_unregister indirectly. Not in platform_device_unregister but when calling platform_device_del and platform_device_put there. -- Jarkko