Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: JZM6zfsSeRKmug3yNkG5B4Mpyh6AE9rKmcjbe2FeI2rvNQJoPpMUkT9/+vh10ZQR2PZ4Trsu3Z
 rO9FsS9e43dQ==
IronPort-SDR: HQST3gf+o0GnEsydi+Z6/lIeh000nTt0LDNLWrhjgijJEO+/HaecyyeofJGt75liq7l3IMXzpo
 s/U8DrdrAMWw==
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:50:51 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/23] gpio: mockup: use dynamic device IDs
Message-ID: <20200907115051.GY1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20200904154547.3836-1-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20200904154547.3836-16-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20200904164917.GC1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=MeG8xuB0GNbMLi6+QZTphSN==77Hsw1fjVNU_+Z=Ky2qQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=MeG8xuB0GNbMLi6+QZTphSN==77Hsw1fjVNU_+Z=Ky2qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 01:04:29PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:49 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 05:45:39PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> > >
> > > We're currently creating chips at module init time only so using a
> > > static index for dummy devices is fine. We want to support dynamically
> > > created chips however so we need to switch to dynamic device IDs.
> >
> > It misses ida_destroy().
> 
> No, we always call ida_free() for separate IDs when removing devices
> and we remove all devices at module exit so no need to call
> ida_destroy().

Perhaps couple of words about this in the commit message?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko