RE: [PATCH] usb: phy: tegra: Using devm API for memory allocation

[Venu Byravarasu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:03 PM
> To: Venu Byravarasu
> Cc: balbi@xxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: phy: tegra: Using devm API for memory allocation
> 
> On 12/17/2012 11:21 PM, Venu Byravarasu wrote:
> > Using devm_kzalloc for allocating memory needed for PHY
> > pointer and hence removing kfree calls to PHY pointer.
> 
> Since the kfree() here used to be in tegra_usb_phy_close() rather than
> any remove() function, does it actually make sense to use
> devm_kzalloc(); would plain using kzalloc() instead, and not removing
> the kfree() calls, be better?
> 
 
Stephen,
As you mentioned I can replace kmalloc with kzalloc in the original code 
and push an updated patch.
However, I just wanted to understand if there exists any issue
in using devm_kzalloc instead of kzalloc?

> When the PHY code gets converted to be an actual probed driver, then
> perhaps using devm will make sense.
--
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/