From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:18:35 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] gpiolib: fix callers of gpiochip_remove
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYdwhujkP_66GCNktcvXFOzmGW=3t6BvCSXXMnHu03eEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2923496.zl6JUbOQrZ@wuerfel>
 <CACRpkdYdwhujkP_66GCNktcvXFOzmGW=3t6BvCSXXMnHu03eEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2272579.vn7eKdEJtW@wuerfel>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tuesday 30 September 2014 16:11:28 Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> 
> > A recent API change made gpiochip_remove return void instead of an
> > error value, which broke drivers that use this return value:
> >
> > gpio/gpio-sch311x.c: In function 'sch311x_gpio_probe':
> > gpio/gpio-sch311x.c:286:7: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
> >    if (gpiochip_remove(&priv->blocks[i].chip))
> >        ^
> >
> > This changes the callers that I have found during randconfig testing
> > so they no longer depend on the error code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > Fixes: e1db1706c86e ("gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void")
> 
> Hm AFAICT these are already fixes in my GPIO tree
> and linux-next...
> 
> Am I looking in the wrong place?
> 
> 

No, it's my fault, I seem to have a patch in my tree that reverts those
changes.

	Arnd