On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 10:01 PM Jacob Keller <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 4/9/2025 2:54 PM, Tony Nguyen wrote:
> > On 4/7/2025 4:20 PM, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> >
> > iwl-next, not intel-next :)
The brain rot on unused cells is severe it seems :-)
> >> - if (pf->ptp.clock)
> >> + if (pf->ptp.clock) {
> >> ptp_clock_unregister(pf->ptp.clock);
> >> + pf->ptp.clock = NULL;
> >> + }
> >> + pf->ptp.state = ICE_PTP_UNINIT;
> >
> > Hi Jesse,
> >
> > It looks like we get a proper removal/unregister in ice_ptp_release()
> > which is called from ice_deinit_features(). From what I'm seeing, I
> > don't think the unregister should be done here at all.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tony
> >
>
> +1, I think a v2 should just remove the entire call to
> ptp_clock_unregister here. It's the wrong place to do it. It causing
> problems is further evidence of this.
Ok, thanks to both, I'll see if I can spin a v2 and eliminate the
extra cruft. This might also explain why a second load of the driver
fails to register the clock after the double unregister.
