From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: remove the now-redundant kref
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:22:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FCD272E.1020300@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK=WgbbwaMAnTGcivC9ZR8K-MtTqHAV3+BgUmk8WjCaayifJxw@mail.gmail.com>
On 05/30/12 05:38, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> - /* the rproc will only be released after its refcount drops to zero */
>>> - kref_put(&rproc->refcount, rproc_release);
>>> + /* unroll rproc_alloc. TODO: we may want to let the users do that */
>>> + put_device(&rproc->dev);
>> Yes I think we want rproc_free() to actually call put_device() the last
>> time and free the resources.
> Yeah that was one of the options I considered.
>
> In general, we have three options here:
> 1. Remove this last put_device invocation, and require users to call
> rproc_free() even after they call rproc_unregister().
> 2. Let rproc_unregister() still do this, by calling rproc_free().
> 3. Let rproc_unregister() still do this, by invoking put_device().
>
> I think that (1) looks better since it makes the interface symmetric
> and straight forward.
>
> (2) and (3) may be simper because users only need to call
> rproc_unregister and that's it.
>
> I eventually decided against (1) because I was concerned it will only
> confuse users at this point.
>
> But if you think that (1) is nicer too then maybe we should go ahead
> and do that change.
Option 1 is nicer and it also follows the model other subsystems have
put forth such as the input subsystem.
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-04 21:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-26 7:36 [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for each rproc Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-26 7:36 ` [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: remove the now-redundant kref Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-30 8:42 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-05-30 12:38 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-06-04 21:22 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2012-06-05 10:25 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-02 8:52 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-02 8:59 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-07-02 9:05 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-15 10:10 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-15 9:17 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-05-30 8:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for each rproc Stephen Boyd
2012-05-30 12:16 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-06-04 21:22 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-06-29 8:13 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-02 19:06 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-07-02 19:54 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
2012-07-05 20:35 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-07-15 9:12 ` Ohad Ben-Cohen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FCD272E.1020300@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).