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 S936285AbdJRIdO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:33:14 -0400
Received: from regular1.263xmail.com ([211.150.99.136]:57875 "EHLO
        regular1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1762629AbdJRIdI (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:33:08 -0400
X-263anti-spam: KSV:0;BIG:0;
X-MAIL-GRAY: 0
X-MAIL-DELIVERY: 1
X-KSVirus-check: 0
X-ADDR-CHECKED4: 1
X-ABS-CHECKED: 1
X-SKE-CHECKED: 1
X-ANTISPAM-LEVEL: 2
X-RL-SENDER: jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com
X-FST-TO: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
X-SENDER-IP: 103.29.142.67
X-LOGIN-NAME: jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com
X-UNIQUE-TAG: <eff2153cf5dca94008c486fddb854afb>
X-ATTACHMENT-NUM: 0
X-DNS-TYPE: 0
Message-ID: <59E711B7.90409@rock-chips.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:32:55 +0800
From: jeffy <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20130126 Thunderbird/19.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
        heiko@sntech.de, briannorris@chromium.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        dianders@chromium.org, tfiga@chromium.org, broonie@kernel.org,
        seanpaul@chromium.org, thierry.reding@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: Make sure device detached from driver before
 deleting it
References: <20171018054926.4756-1-jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com> <20171018061952.GA18857@kroah.com> <59E6FD8E.5040805@rock-chips.com> <20171018073348.GB1052@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171018073348.GB1052@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Greg,

On 10/18/2017 03:33 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> The SPI core should have some internal housekeeping to do there as well,
> right?  Is this the only bus that gets this "wrong"?
>
hmm, i checked i2c code, it has the same issue:

void i2c_unregister_device(struct i2c_client *client)
{
         if (client->dev.of_node)
                 of_node_clear_flag(client->dev.of_node, OF_POPULATED);
         if (ACPI_COMPANION(&client->dev))
                 acpi_device_clear_enumerated(ACPI_COMPANION(&client->dev));
         device_unregister(&client->dev);
}

not sure about others, maybe mfd-core too...

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
>
>