From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregkh@suse.de (Greg KH) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:51:53 -0700 Subject: tq 2440 In-Reply-To: <20100715173322.GL29322@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20100715163526.GJ29322@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20100715165141.GA21272@suse.de> <20100715171029.GK29322@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20100715172218.GA22197@suse.de> <20100715173322.GL29322@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20100715205153.GC24463@suse.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 06:33:22PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:22:18AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 06:10:29PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:51:41AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 05:35:26PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:16:30PM +0800, Conke Hu wrote: > > > > > > ever notice to the following kernel log? > > > > > > "Device 's3c2440-nand' does not have a release() function, it is > > > > > > broken and must." > > > > > > release() function should be implemented in the platform_device. > > > > > > > > > > That's not telling you to provide a release function. The warning is > > > > > telling you that a device is being unregistered which doesn't have a > > > > > release function. > > > > > > > > > > Consider this point - maybe it doesn't have a release function because > > > > > it's not supposed to be unregistered? > > > > > > > > Heh, well, it is being unregistered, and at that point in time, the > > > > kernel complains. > > > > > > The unregistration occurs because platform_register_devices() (which is > > > used by arch code to register a block of platform devices) undoes its > > > work if one of the devices fails to register. > > > > > > I've long since thought, since I created that function, that this probably > > > isn't desirable behaviour, and it should continue to register as many > > > devices as it possibly can. > > > > > > > All kobjects need a release function that actually frees it. If not, > > > > that is a logic bug. Please see the Documentation/kobject.txt file for > > > > details. > > > > > > How do you free a statically declared platform device? > > > > You never unregister it :) > > Indeed, and one way to do that is to fix the double-registration of > dm9000.0. I agree. > Another way to avoid the other complaints is to remove > the unregistration in platform_register_devices(). No, because you could have created a platform device with a call to platform_device_alloc() and then called platform_device_register() and then later, platform_device_unregister(), right? thanks, greg k-h