Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752517AbcJLFiv (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 01:38:51 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:35017 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752097AbcJLFiq (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 01:38:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:08:42 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Markus Mayer Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Broadcom Kernel List , Device Tree List , Power Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: AVS CPUfreq driver for Broadcom STB SoCs Message-ID: <20161012053842.GF19385@vireshk-i7> References: <1475882487-2155-1-git-send-email-mmayer@broadcom.com> <1475882487-2155-3-git-send-email-mmayer@broadcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1475882487-2155-3-git-send-email-mmayer@broadcom.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 500 Lines: 22 On 07-10-16, 16:21, Markus Mayer wrote: > +static int brcm_avs_cpufreq_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > +{ > + struct private_data *priv = policy->driver_data; > + > + iounmap(priv->base); > + iounmap(priv->avs_intr_base); > + > + return 0; > +} Shouldn't the above be done in the below routine instead ? > +static int brcm_avs_cpufreq_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > +{ > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL); > + > + return cpufreq_unregister_driver(&brcm_avs_driver); > +} -- viresh