Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: add viperboard driver

From: Lars Poeschel
Date: Tue Oct 16 2012 - 05:43:23 EST

On Tuesday 16 October 2012 at 10:40:26, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 04:34 PM, Lars Poeschel wrote:
> > [...]
> > +static void vprbrd_dev_release(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + return;
> A empty release callback is usually a good indicator that something is
> wrong. The release callback will be called once the last reference to the
> device has been called, so the memory associated with the device should not
> be freed before the release callback has been called, otherwise the memory
> might be accessed after it has been freed...
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void vprbrd_free(struct vprbrd *dev)
> > +{
> > + usb_put_dev(dev->usb_dev);
> > + kfree(dev);
> ..., so this kfree should be moved from here to the release callback.

Thank you for catching that one!

> Btw. I'm wondering why is the extra platform device required? Can't you not
> just use the usb device as the parent device for the mfd cells?

This is what I first did, but this does not work. You can read about my first
thoughts why this is not working here: (To sum it up: The device is housed in
an usb_device, not a platform_device and This usb_device has no mfd_cell

As I got a bit more deeper I also noticed, that mfd_add_devices (obviously)
adds the devices "as childs" to the parent device. mfd_remove_devices then
removes ALL "child" devices from the parent, not only those added by
mfd_add_devices before. This does not work in the case of the usb parent
device, because it has other childs that the usb layer added before (some
endpoints and stuff). So I had to construct an "empty" (in sense of childs)
mock platform_device between the usb and mfd.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at