From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757479Ab1JRLOz (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:14:55 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:55523 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752207Ab1JRLOy (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:14:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4E9D5FAB.2080605@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:14:51 +0100 From: Lee Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@stericsson.com, jamie@jamieiles.com, arnd@arndb.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices References: <1318852378-14180-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1318852378-14180-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20111017161854.GB5108@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20111017161854.GB5108@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 17/10/11 17:18, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:52:54PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: >> +void soc_device_unregister(struct device *dev) > > Ick, no, pass in the struct soc_device, which the register function > should return, not a "raw" struct device. Okay. >> +{ >> + struct soc_device *soc_dev = >> + container_of(dev, struct soc_device, dev); >> + >> + sysfs_remove_group(&dev->kobj, &soc_attr_group); >> + >> + if (device_is_registered(dev)) >> + device_unregister(dev); > > Why is this call needed? To unregister a previously unregistered device? Is that wrong? >> + >> + bus_unregister(&soc_bus_type); > > What happens if you have more than one SOC device? I think you just > oopsed. I think you're right. When to you suggest we unregister the bus? >> + >> + kfree(soc_dev->attr); >> + kfree(soc_dev); > > Nope, you just failed again. I can tell you never tried this code path, > otherwise you would have noticed the HUGE warnings that the kernel spit > back at you. Please fix this. I'll look into it. Thanks. Kind regards, Lee