From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753928AbbGXI2Z (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:28:25 -0400
Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:26025 "EHLO
	mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752057AbbGXI2V (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:28:21 -0400
Subject: Re: question about drivers/dma/dma-jz4780.c
To: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507191104040.2002@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <55ACAEC5.7090000@imgtec.com> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507201027560.2408@hadrien>
 <20150721041558.GE23525@localhost> <55AFA7F9.20600@imgtec.com>
 <20150723172110.GB29916@localhost>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507231920360.2450@hadrien>
 <20150724054226.GO29916@localhost>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507240749290.2225@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <20150724063019.GP29916@localhost>
CC: <Zubair.Kakakhel@imgtec.com>, <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Vaishali Thakkar" <vthakkar1994@gmail.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Alex Smith <alex.smith@imgtec.com>
Message-ID: <55B1F723.3010702@imgtec.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:28:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150724063019.GP29916@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.154.136]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 24/07/2015 07:30, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:51:28AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> Yes for dmaengine drivers I do ask this question which typically ends up in
>>> driver invoking devm_irq_free() in driver's remove callback
>>>
>>> IMHO don't think devm irq calls are very useful, they do make stuff
>>> complicate
>>
>> Would it be better then to just go back to request_irq (or whatever is
>> appropriate in this case).  It would seem that the devm property can never
>> be relied on, so there is no point to use it.
>
> Yes I do think that is right way in this case
>

Hmm, OK, I will drop the patch I submitted removing the explicit 
devm_free_irq() call and send a new one which stops using the devm IRQ 
functions, and kills the tasklets.

Thanks,
Alex