Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] extcon: driver model release call not needed

[Chanwoo Choi]

On 10/19/2012 02:12 AM, anish kumar wrote:
> From: anish kumar <anish198519851985@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> We don't need a release call in this file as we are doing
> everything needed in unregister call and we don't have any
> more pointer to free up.
> 
> Signed-off-by: anish kumar <anish198519851985@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c |    4 +---
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c
> index 946a318..cf30eb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c
> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-class.c
> @@ -585,9 +585,7 @@ static void extcon_cleanup(struct extcon_dev *edev, bool skip)
>  
>  static void extcon_dev_release(struct device *dev)
>  {
> -	struct extcon_dev *edev = (struct extcon_dev *) dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> -
> -	extcon_cleanup(edev, true);
> +	/* We don't have any thing to free here */
>  }
>  
>  static const char *muex_name = "mutually_exclusive";

I can't agree this patch. The extcon_dev_release() function is used
for dev->release. If some case without calling extcon_dev_unregister(),
I think dev->release function is needed to free memory of edev->dev.

The edev->dev->release store the function pointer of extcon_dev_release()
in extcon_dev_register().
edev->dev->parent = dev;
edev->dev->class = extcon_class;
edev->dev->release = extcon_dev_release;


Thanks,
Chanwoo Choi
--
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/