Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: remove the now-redundant kref

[Ohad Ben-Cohen]

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/30/12 05:38, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> -     /* the rproc will only be released after its refcount drops to zero */
>>>> -     kref_put(&rproc->refcount, rproc_release);
>>>> +     /* unroll rproc_alloc. TODO: we may want to let the users do that */
>>>> +     put_device(&rproc->dev);
>>> Yes I think we want rproc_free() to actually call put_device() the last
>>> time and free the resources.
>> Yeah that was one of the options I considered.
>>
>> In general, we have three options here:
>> 1. Remove this last put_device invocation, and require users to call
>> rproc_free() even after they call rproc_unregister().
>> 2. Let rproc_unregister() still do this, by calling rproc_free().
>> 3. Let rproc_unregister() still do this, by invoking put_device().
>>
>> I think that (1) looks better since it makes the interface symmetric
>> and straight forward.
>>
>> (2) and (3) may be simper because users only need to call
>> rproc_unregister and that's it.
>>
>> I eventually decided against (1) because I was concerned it will only
>> confuse users at this point.
>>
>> But if you think that (1) is nicer too then maybe we should go ahead
>> and do that change.
>
> Option 1 is nicer and it also follows the model other subsystems have
> put forth such as the input subsystem.