From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752901AbbHaIIM (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 04:08:12 -0400 Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.29]:56857 "EHLO lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752036AbbHaIIK (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 04:08:10 -0400 Message-ID: <1441008481.8272.10.camel@tiscali.nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] dmaengine: st_fdma: Add STMicroelectronics FDMA engine driver support From: Paul Bolle To: Maxime Coquelin , Peter Griffin Cc: lee.jones@linaro.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, ludovic.barre@st.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@gmail.com, patrice.chotard@st.com, vinod.koul@intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:08:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <55E40715.1040204@st.com> References: <1436371888-27863-1-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> <1436371888-27863-4-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> <1436429872.20619.77.camel@tiscali.nl> <55E40715.1040204@st.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5 (3.16.5-1.fc22) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Maxime, On ma, 2015-08-31 at 09:49 +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > On 07/09/2015 10:17 AM, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > > +static int __exit st_fdma_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct st_fdma_dev *fdev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > > > + > > > > + wait_for_completion(&fdev->fw_ack); > > > > + > > > > + st_fdma_clk_disable(fdev); > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > Since this driver is built-in only this means st_fdma_remove() can > > never be used, right? > It's not because a driver is built-in only that it does not need a > remove callback. > An instance can be probed/removed any time via driver's bind/unbind > SysFS entries. > Am I missing something? (This discussion is moot because Peter already stated that a new version will be modular.) It follows from the __exit tag that st_fdma_remove() should never be part of the kernel image (in this version of the patch), doesn't it? (I don't know what happens in this situation if an unbind sysfs entry is used to remove a driver. I've never tried that.) Paul Bolle