From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ben-linux@fluff.org (Ben Dooks) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:51:39 +0000 Subject: Using statically allocated memory for platform_data. In-Reply-To: <20091102103940.GA25282@pengutronix.de> References: <20091102112316.16163f6a.ospite@studenti.unina.it> <20091102103940.GA25282@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20091102145139.GA20341@fluff.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 11:39:40AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 11:23:16AM +0100, Antonio Ospite wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I noted that in some mfd drivers (drivers/mfd/ezx-pcap.c and > > drivers/mfd/da903x.c) there is code like this: > > > > static int __devinit pcap_add_subdev(struct pcap_chip *pcap, > > struct pcap_subdev *subdev) > > { > > struct platform_device *pdev; > > > > pdev = platform_device_alloc(subdev->name, subdev->id); > > pdev->dev.parent = &pcap->spi->dev; > > pdev->dev.platform_data = subdev->platform_data; > > > > return platform_device_add(pdev); > > } > > > > Note the _direct_assignment_ of platform data; then in board init code > > there are often global struct pointers passed as subdev platform data, > > see arch/arm/mach-pxa/em-x270.c::em_x270_da9030_subdevs for instance. > > > > In these cases, whenever the subdev platform device is unregistered, > > the call to platform_device_release() tries to kfree the platform data, > > and being it statically allocated memory this triggers a bug from SLAB: > > kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:521! > > In my case this prevented proper device poweroff. > > > > The question: should these mfd drivers use platform_device_add_data() > > which allocates dynamic memory for *a copy* of platform data? Is this > > simple solution acceptable even if there will be more memory used? > If you move the original data lives in .init there is no duplication. they you can't modprobe devices after loading the kernel, so udev autoload and the like become impossible. -- Ben (ben at fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/) 'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'