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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <20200907115051.GY1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200907115051.GY1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:59:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJWM265uk39mddEwVUYJdnM+1Stx3Ds8O9-ucYvMnV7hRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/23] gpio: mockup: use dynamic device IDs
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        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>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 1:50 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

But ida_destroy() and ida_free() are already well documented. It's
clear that we remove all devices at exit and that every device removes
its ID, there's really no point in mentioning it again.

Bart