From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] pata_legacy: Allow disabling of legacy PATA device probes on non-PCI systems Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:22:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20161222192256.GE31216@htj.duckdns.org> References: <20161202170705.GB6033@htj.duckdns.org> <20161205192310.GA30331@mtj.duckdns.org> <20161212170154.GA13864@htj.duckdns.org> <20161222163711.GB29161@htj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-yb0-f194.google.com ([209.85.213.194]:35906 "EHLO mail-yb0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S941094AbcLVTW7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:22:59 -0500 Received: by mail-yb0-f194.google.com with SMTP id s74so1767932ybi.3 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:22:59 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: whiteheadm@acm.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , One Thousand Gnomes , Sergei Shtylyov , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 01:30:23PM -0500, tedheadster wrote: > > I think this driver should either not be considered 'platform' or it > > should make a call to free_irq() on failures. > > > > The question is: who is responsible to free an irq from a device > registered using platform_device_register_simple()? Is it the driver > or the platform code? Sorry, I wasn't clear. There's a rudimentary garbage collector devm which tracks all the resources associated with a device. The previous patch that I sent you which created an explict resource group and released it uses the same mechanism. When any device gets destroyed, it should release all associated resources and I was wondering why that wasn't happening without the explicit group operations. I'll write up a debug patch to track down what's going on. Thanks. -- tejun