From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shubhrajyoti Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 06/10] I2C: OMAP: Fix the crash in i2c remove Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:13:24 +0530 Message-ID: <4F98EE8C.3070001@ti.com> References: <1334842101-20670-1-git-send-email-shubhrajyoti@ti.com> <1334842101-20670-7-git-send-email-shubhrajyoti@ti.com> <20120423164944.GE27321@pengutronix.de> <4F96ED77.9070503@ti.com> <20120424181806.GF9007@pengutronix.de> <4F98EB03.8060903@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F98EB03.8060903@ti.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Kevin Hilman , tony@atomide.com, Rajendra Nayak , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 26 April 2012 11:58 AM, Shubhrajyoti wrote: > On Tuesday 24 April 2012 11:48 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:44:15PM +0530, Shubhrajyoti wrote: >>> On Monday 23 April 2012 10:19 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>>>> [ 154.901153] Exception stack(0xdf9b9fb0 to 0xdf9b9ff8) >>>>>> [ 154.907104] 9fa0: beaf1f0= 4 4006be00 0000000f 0000000c >>>>>> [ 154.915710] 9fc0: 4006c000 00000000 00008034 ffffff40 0000000= 7 00000000 00000000 0007b8d7 >>>>>> [ 154.916778] 9fe0: 00000000 beaf1b68 0000d23c 4005baf0 8000001= 0 ffffffff >>>>>> [ 154.931335] r6:ffffffff r5:80000010 r4:4005baf0 r3:beaf1f04 >>>>>> [ 154.937316] ---[ end trace 1b75b31a2719ed21 ]-- >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti D >>>> Is this really the correct solution? I do wonder that every driver usi= ng >>>> runtime PM should enable the clocks on their own. That should be done = by >>>> the core, = >>> By core you don't mean the i2c core but the pm layer right? >> Yes. >> >>>> I'd say; it is not unusual that drivers need to write to >>>> registers in remove(). If it is correct, can I get some acks? >>> I did see the crash. >> That was never a doubt. With "correct" I meant "correct solution". >> >>> Will wait for the pm experts to comment. > As far as I know I don=92t think that the pm layer doesn't enable the clo= cks > for the drivers on remove. Maybe Kevin or Rajendra can comment better. typo what i meant was As far as I know the pm layer doesn't enable the clocks for the drivers on remove. Maybe Kevin or Rajendra can comment better. thanks, > >