Re: [RFC 2/8] remoteproc: add omap implementation

[Grant Likely]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Grant Likely
> <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Very little for me to comment on here.  However, something I just
>> noticed.  Why is it necessary to pass in THIS_MODULE to the
>> rproc_register function?  Having a reference to the pdev gives you the
>> pointer to the driver, which has the THIS_MODULE value in it.  That
>> should be sufficient.
>
> Nice one, thanks !
>
>> /me also isn't sure if incrementing the refcount on the module is the
>> best way to prevent the rproc from going away, but I haven't dug into
>> the details in the driver code to find out.  Drivers can get unbound
>> from devices without the driver being unloaded, so I imagine there is
>> an in-use count on the device itself that would prevent driver
>> unbinding.
>
> Yes, increasing the module refcount is necessary to prevent the user
> from removing the driver when the rproc is used.

That prevents removing the module which necessitates unbinding the
device.  However, I believe it is possible to unbind a driver
/without/ the module being unloaded.  My question (for which I don't
have an answer) is whether or not there is a way to increment a
refcount on users of the driver bound to the device..

g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/