From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com (mx0a-001ae601.pphosted.com [67.231.149.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3vsqbd6wLbzDqY6 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:15:25 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:53:06 +0100 From: Charles Keepax To: Daniel Baluta CC: Daniel Baluta , Nicolin Chen , Mark Brown , , Timur Tabi , , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Liam Girdwood , Takashi Iwai , , Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v3 2/2] ASoC: imx-wm8962: Fix codec_clk cleanup Message-ID: <20170328115306.GR6986@localhost.localdomain> References: <1490691532-2086-1-git-send-email-daniel.baluta@nxp.com> <1490691532-2086-3-git-send-email-daniel.baluta@nxp.com> <20170328092103.GQ6986@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:47:04PM +0300, Daniel Baluta wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Charles Keepax > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:58:52AM +0300, Daniel Baluta wrote: > >> Resource managed devm_clk_get only works with platform's device dev. > >> > > > > I feel like this could use an explaination of why not using devm > > is the correct fix, rather than just using the platform device > > for the call. Its not obvious to me, that using the platform > > device would be an issue. > > Hi Charles, > > I see where the confusion comes from :) and I thought the explanation > is obvious from the code, see inline comments. > > Would an explanation like the one below, work better? > > " We cannot use devm_clk_get with &codec_dev->dev device because > the kernel uses pdev->dev to free the managed resources, so we will end > up with a leaking codec_clk reference" > > >> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static int imx_wm8962_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> goto fail; > >> } > > pdev->dev from here: > > >> > >> - codec_clk = devm_clk_get(&codec_dev->dev, NULL); > >> + codec_clk = clk_get(&codec_dev->dev, NULL); > > is different from &codec_dev->dev. > I get that they are different, I just don't get why changing from a devm_clk_get to a clk_get is a better fix than changing &codec->dev to &pdev->dev. Thanks, Charles