Re: [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Don't delete sysfs group twice

[Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>]

Hi,

On 2016년 12월 14일 20:32, Chris Diamand wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for your replies.
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>> index 8a456dd55a8d..3e9eb7fa9e72 100644
>> --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>> @@ -488,10 +488,6 @@ static void _remove_devfreq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>>         list_del(&devfreq->node);
>>         mutex_unlock(&devfreq_list_lock);
>>  
>> -       if (devfreq->governor)
>> -               devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
>> -                                                DEVFREQ_GOV_STOP, NULL);
>> -
>>         if (devfreq->profile->exit)
>>                 devfreq->profile->exit(devfreq->dev.parent);
> 
> I was thinking of removing this too, but wasn't completely sure - is there
> any situation where the devfreq feature's reference count would go to 0,
> *without* going via devfreq_remove_device()?

I only considered the case which calling the devfreq_remove_device().

As you mentioned, it is right to remain this code in _remove_devfreq()
for other case to unregister devfreq device except for devfreq_remove_device().

I'm sorry to make you confused.


> 
> If there is, we might need to keep it, although the userspace governor would
> still be broken for those cases.
> 
> The one case I can think of is if there's an error in devfreq_add_device(),
> where it calls device_unregister() directly. Except I think we're OK here,
> because the governor won't have started yet.


-- 
Regards,
Chanwoo Choi