On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:29:03PM +0100, Javi Merino wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:50:20PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:29:11AM +0100, Javi Merino wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > The code in question is called outside of standard driver > > > > probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm* > > > > infrastructure. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> > > > > > > We added the devm* calls because Eduardo asked for them in the review. > > > I don't have a strong opinion regarding this, I'll leave the decision > > > to Eduardo. > > > > I tried to look for his reasons, if any, but even in earliest posted > > versions use devm* for allocating memory > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/45000/focus=45265 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/46064/focus=1722858 > > He didn't give reasons and I didn't ask for them. He insisted on it so I > just added > it across the board.
Yeah, that's my bad. I believe I had in mind getting the thermal core in a better shape by having proper driver/device matching. But still, looking at the code now, I must agree with Dmitry. As of now, it does not make sense. BR, Eduardo > > Cheers, > Javi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
