Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: discard duplicate OPP additions

[Inderpal Singh]

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15 May 2014 10:02, Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I feel freeing of opps are needed at least at the driver unregistration
>> time, like we free cpufreq_table.
>> Otherwise it amounts to memory leak unless we assume that the same driver is
>> going to re-register and re-use the same opps.
>
> Its memory leak only if we have lost the pointer to allocated memory, which
> we haven't. Yes, it will keep occupying some space but there is only
> one instance
> of that per 'cluster' and is very much affordable instead of building it again..
>
> There is a high chance that it will be used again by this or any other driver,
> cpufreq or outside of it.
>
> But, yes I do agree that the OPPs not added from dts, i.e. added from
> platform should be freed when they don't make a sense. But that's a different
> issue altogether.

What i am saying that "what if we are not going to re-use again ? " I
am not sure if its practical.
Also, I feel the driver who created the opp table at its registration
time should free it at its unregistration. Isn't it true in general?


> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/