[PATCHv8 06/10] I2C: OMAP: Fix the crash in i2c remove

[Shubhrajyoti]

On Thursday 26 April 2012 11:58 AM, Shubhrajyoti wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 April 2012 11:48 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:44:15PM +0530, Shubhrajyoti wrote:
>>> On Monday 23 April 2012 10:19 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>>>     [  154.901153] Exception stack(0xdf9b9fb0 to 0xdf9b9ff8)
>>>>>>     [  154.907104] 9fa0:                                     beaf1f04 4006be00 0000000f 0000000c
>>>>>>     [  154.915710] 9fc0: 4006c000 00000000 00008034 ffffff40 00000007 00000000 00000000 0007b8d7
>>>>>>     [  154.916778] 9fe0: 00000000 beaf1b68 0000d23c 4005baf0 80000010 ffffffff
>>>>>>     [  154.931335]  r6:ffffffff r5:80000010 r4:4005baf0 r3:beaf1f04
>>>>>>     [  154.937316] ---[ end trace 1b75b31a2719ed21 ]--
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti D <shubhrajyoti at ti.com>
>>>> Is this really the correct solution? I do wonder that every driver using
>>>> runtime PM should enable the clocks on their own. That should be done by
>>>> the core, 
>>> By core you don't mean the i2c core but the pm layer right?
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> I'd say; it is not unusual that drivers need to write to
>>>> registers in remove(). If it is correct, can I get some acks?
>>> I did see the crash.
>> That was never a doubt. With "correct" I meant "correct solution".
>>
>>> Will wait for the pm experts to comment.
> As far as I know I don’t think that the pm layer doesn't enable the clocks
> for the drivers on remove. Maybe Kevin or Rajendra can comment better.
typo what i meant was

As far as I know the pm layer doesn't enable the clocks
for the drivers on remove. Maybe Kevin or Rajendra can comment better.

thanks,
>
>