From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: Bug in i2c-core? Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:03:40 +0200 Message-ID: <3574616.qzNqihiGp7@avalon> References: <54F0507F.6030804@armadeus.com> <20150227165944.GA6679@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150227165944.GA6679@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien?= SZYMANSKI , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Wolfram Sang , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Hi Dmitry, On Friday 27 February 2015 08:59:44 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:09:51PM +0100, S=E9bastien SZYMANSKI wrote= : > > Hi, > >=20 > > I am writing an I2C touchscreen driver for an i.MX6 based board. I > > compiled it as a module and when I unload it, I get the following w= arning: > >=20 > > # modprobe sx8654 > > [ 46.261494] input: SX8654 I2C Touchscreen as > > /devices/soc0/soc/2100000.aips-bus/21a0000.i2c/i2c-0/0-0048/input/i= nput1 > > # rmmod sx8654 > > [ 76.435223] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 76.439909] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 134 at fs/proc/generic.c:552 > > remove_proc_entry+0x148/0x164() > > [ 76.448582] remove_proc_entry: removing non-empty directory > > 'irq/208', leaking at least 'sx8654' >=20 > ... >=20 > > When I revert commit e4df3a0 (i2c: core: Dispose OF IRQ mapping at > > client removal time) I don't get the warning. > >=20 > > Is this a bug in the i2c-core or am I doing something wrong in my d= river? >=20 > Yes, this commit breaks all drivers using devm* for IRQ management on > OF-based systemsi because devm* cleanup happens in device code, after > bus's remove() method returns. I'd recommend reverting and finding a > better way (making cleanup a custom devm action as well?). Ouch, my bad. Wolfram, any opinion ? The original patch fixes a real bug, so we shoul= dn't=20 just revert it. --=20 Regards, Laurent Pinchart