From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ladislav Michl Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmci-omap: free irq resource Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:05:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20091118190520.GA7941@localhost.localdomain> References: <20091101115905.GB15144@localhost.localdomain> <20091109142749.0d8f6967.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Reply-To: Ladislav Michl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from smtp.seznam.cz ([77.75.72.43]:33473 "EHLO smtp.seznam.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757883AbZKRSF3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:05:29 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091109142749.0d8f6967.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jarkko Lavinen , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:27:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:59:05 +0100 > Ladislav.Michl@seznam.cz wrote: > > > Free IRQ on remove. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ladislav Michl > > Acked-by: Tony Lindgren > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/omap.c b/drivers/mmc/host/omap.c > > index 5d773b8..5f970e2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap.c > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap.c > > @@ -1529,6 +1529,7 @@ static int mmc_omap_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > host->pdata->cleanup(&pdev->dev); > > > > mmc_omap_fclk_enable(host, 0); > > + free_irq(host->irq, host); > > clk_put(host->fclk); > > clk_disable(host->iclk); > > clk_put(host->iclk); > > This is a poor changelog. I'm sorry for that as well as for sending this patch twice. I will do better next time. > The reader doesn't know what the implication of the bug is. I _assume_ > that it means that the driver can only be loaded a single time. That > on a second modprobe, it fails to allocate the interrupt and fails. This is perfectly correct assumption. > In which case this is a fairly serious bug and perhaps the patch should > be backported into the -stable tree. There is no point backporting it as this driver is broken for ages without single complain. (details here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/649) > Or I could be all wrong about all of that. This is why it's better if > the patch submitter *explains* these things, rather than leaving others > to guess. Best regards, ladis