* [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
@ 2014-05-23 17:03 abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-27 13:33 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: abdoulaye berthe @ 2014-05-23 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linus.walleij, gnurou, mika.westerberg, andriy.shevchenko, sfr,
berthe.ab, linux-gpio, linux-kernel
This avoids handling gpiochip remove error in device
remove handler.
Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++++++-----------------
include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index f48817d..4878980 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct gpio_chip *gpiochip);
*
* A gpio_chip with any GPIOs still requested may not be removed.
*/
-int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
+void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
{
unsigned long flags;
- int status = 0;
unsigned id;
acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
@@ -1278,24 +1277,15 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
- if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
- status = -EBUSY;
- break;
- }
- }
- if (status == 0) {
- for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
- chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
-
- list_del(&chip->list);
+ if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
+ panic("gpiolib.c: gpiochip is still requested\n");
}
+ for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
+ chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
+ list_del(&chip->list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-
- if (status == 0)
- gpiochip_unexport(chip);
-
- return status;
+ gpiochip_unexport(chip);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_remove);
diff --git a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
index 1827b43..72ed256 100644
--- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
+++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ extern const char *gpiochip_is_requested(struct gpio_chip *chip,
/* add/remove chips */
extern int gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip);
-extern int __must_check gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
+void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
extern struct gpio_chip *gpiochip_find(void *data,
int (*match)(struct gpio_chip *chip, void *data));
--
1.8.3.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
@ 2014-05-23 17:12 abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-23 17:39 ` abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-25 7:46 ` Alexandre Courbot
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: abdoulaye berthe @ 2014-05-23 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linus.walleij, gnurou, mika.westerberg, andriy.shevchenko, sfr,
berthe.ab, linux-gpio, linux-kernel
This avoids handling gpiochip remove error in device
remove handler.
Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++++++-----------------
include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index f48817d..4878980 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct gpio_chip *gpiochip);
*
* A gpio_chip with any GPIOs still requested may not be removed.
*/
-int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
+void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
{
unsigned long flags;
- int status = 0;
unsigned id;
acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
@@ -1278,24 +1277,15 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
- if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
- status = -EBUSY;
- break;
- }
- }
- if (status == 0) {
- for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
- chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
-
- list_del(&chip->list);
+ if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
+ panic("gpiolib.c: gpiochip is still requested\n");
}
+ for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
+ chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
+ list_del(&chip->list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-
- if (status == 0)
- gpiochip_unexport(chip);
-
- return status;
+ gpiochip_unexport(chip);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_remove);
diff --git a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
index 1827b43..72ed256 100644
--- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
+++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ extern const char *gpiochip_is_requested(struct gpio_chip *chip,
/* add/remove chips */
extern int gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip);
-extern int __must_check gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
+void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
extern struct gpio_chip *gpiochip_find(void *data,
int (*match)(struct gpio_chip *chip, void *data));
--
1.8.3.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
2014-05-23 17:12 [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void abdoulaye berthe
@ 2014-05-23 17:39 ` abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-25 7:46 ` Alexandre Courbot
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: abdoulaye berthe @ 2014-05-23 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij, Alexandre Courbot, mika.westerberg,
andriy.shevchenko, Stephen Rothwell, abdoulaye berthe, linux-gpio,
linux-kernel
If this step is ok I will continue by updating the codes that use it.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:12 PM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com> wrote:
> This avoids handling gpiochip remove error in device
> remove handler.
>
> Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++++++-----------------
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index f48817d..4878980 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct gpio_chip *gpiochip);
> *
> * A gpio_chip with any GPIOs still requested may not be removed.
> */
> -int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> +void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - int status = 0;
> unsigned id;
>
> acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
> @@ -1278,24 +1277,15 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
>
> for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
> - if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
> - status = -EBUSY;
> - break;
> - }
> - }
> - if (status == 0) {
> - for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
> - chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
> -
> - list_del(&chip->list);
> + if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
> + panic("gpiolib.c: gpiochip is still requested\n");
> }
> + for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
> + chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
>
> + list_del(&chip->list);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
> -
> - if (status == 0)
> - gpiochip_unexport(chip);
> -
> - return status;
> + gpiochip_unexport(chip);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_remove);
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
> index 1827b43..72ed256 100644
> --- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
> +++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ extern const char *gpiochip_is_requested(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>
> /* add/remove chips */
> extern int gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip);
> -extern int __must_check gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
> +void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
> extern struct gpio_chip *gpiochip_find(void *data,
> int (*match)(struct gpio_chip *chip, void *data));
>
> --
> 1.8.3.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
2014-05-23 17:12 [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-23 17:39 ` abdoulaye berthe
@ 2014-05-25 7:46 ` Alexandre Courbot
2014-05-25 16:40 ` abdoulaye berthe
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Courbot @ 2014-05-25 7:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: abdoulaye berthe
Cc: Linus Walleij, Mika Westerberg, Andy Shevchenko, Stephen Rothwell,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:12 AM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com> wrote:
> This avoids handling gpiochip remove error in device
> remove handler.
Be aware that at the moment many callers of gpiochip_remove() read its
return value. So applying your patch as-is would break compilation.
This patch should therefore be the last of a series that first
modifies all callers of gpiochip_remove() to ignore its return value,
then neutralizes the function itself.
I am not sure whether the world would really be a better place after
this though. Callers that don't need the return value of
gpiochip_remove() can simply ignore it...
>
> Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++++++-----------------
> include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index f48817d..4878980 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct gpio_chip *gpiochip);
> *
> * A gpio_chip with any GPIOs still requested may not be removed.
> */
> -int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> +void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - int status = 0;
> unsigned id;
>
> acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
> @@ -1278,24 +1277,15 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
>
> for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
> - if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
> - status = -EBUSY;
> - break;
> - }
> - }
> - if (status == 0) {
> - for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
> - chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
> -
> - list_del(&chip->list);
> + if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
> + panic("gpiolib.c: gpiochip is still requested\n");
panic() sounds a little harsh here. Maybe a dev_err() would be enough?
> }
> + for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
> + chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
>
> + list_del(&chip->list);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
> -
> - if (status == 0)
> - gpiochip_unexport(chip);
> -
> - return status;
> + gpiochip_unexport(chip);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_remove);
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
> index 1827b43..72ed256 100644
> --- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
> +++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ extern const char *gpiochip_is_requested(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>
> /* add/remove chips */
> extern int gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip);
> -extern int __must_check gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
> +void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
"extern" should be preserved here for style consistency.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
2014-05-25 7:46 ` Alexandre Courbot
@ 2014-05-25 16:40 ` abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-25 23:47 ` Alexandre Courbot
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: abdoulaye berthe @ 2014-05-25 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Courbot
Cc: Linus Walleij, Mika Westerberg, Andy Shevchenko, Stephen Rothwell,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List
Well, ignoring the return value as it is done in gpio-bt8xx makes the
compiler complain and display a warning message. The problem with
false warning is that it might distract you. I think that the patch
will makes things consistent once completed
Thanks a lot for the review.
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:12 AM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This avoids handling gpiochip remove error in device
>> remove handler.
>
> Be aware that at the moment many callers of gpiochip_remove() read its
> return value. So applying your patch as-is would break compilation.
>
> This patch should therefore be the last of a series that first
> modifies all callers of gpiochip_remove() to ignore its return value,
> then neutralizes the function itself.
>
> I am not sure whether the world would really be a better place after
> this though. Callers that don't need the return value of
> gpiochip_remove() can simply ignore it...
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++++++-----------------
>> include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 2 +-
>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> index f48817d..4878980 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> @@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct gpio_chip *gpiochip);
>> *
>> * A gpio_chip with any GPIOs still requested may not be removed.
>> */
>> -int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>> +void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>> {
>> unsigned long flags;
>> - int status = 0;
>> unsigned id;
>>
>> acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
>> @@ -1278,24 +1277,15 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>> of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
>>
>> for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
>> - if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
>> - status = -EBUSY;
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - }
>> - if (status == 0) {
>> - for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
>> - chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
>> -
>> - list_del(&chip->list);
>> + if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
>> + panic("gpiolib.c: gpiochip is still requested\n");
>
> panic() sounds a little harsh here. Maybe a dev_err() would be enough?
>
>> }
>> + for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
>> + chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
>>
>> + list_del(&chip->list);
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
>> -
>> - if (status == 0)
>> - gpiochip_unexport(chip);
>> -
>> - return status;
>> + gpiochip_unexport(chip);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_remove);
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
>> index 1827b43..72ed256 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
>> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ extern const char *gpiochip_is_requested(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>>
>> /* add/remove chips */
>> extern int gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip);
>> -extern int __must_check gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
>> +void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
>
> "extern" should be preserved here for style consistency.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
2014-05-25 16:40 ` abdoulaye berthe
@ 2014-05-25 23:47 ` Alexandre Courbot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Courbot @ 2014-05-25 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: abdoulaye berthe
Cc: Linus Walleij, Mika Westerberg, Andy Shevchenko, Stephen Rothwell,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:40 AM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, ignoring the return value as it is done in gpio-bt8xx makes the
> compiler complain and display a warning message. The problem with
> false warning is that it might distract you.
Isn't the warning due to the __must_check in the function's
declaration? If so just removing it might do the trick...
> I think that the patch
> will makes things consistent once completed
Yeah fundamentally speaking I am not against this patch - I just
wonder if it is worth going through all the call sites and changing
them. Also we cannot exclude that a few users actually make something
meaningful with the return value (don't know what that would be
though).
> Thanks a lot for the review.
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:12 AM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This avoids handling gpiochip remove error in device
>>> remove handler.
>>
>> Be aware that at the moment many callers of gpiochip_remove() read its
>> return value. So applying your patch as-is would break compilation.
>>
>> This patch should therefore be the last of a series that first
>> modifies all callers of gpiochip_remove() to ignore its return value,
>> then neutralizes the function itself.
>>
>> I am not sure whether the world would really be a better place after
>> this though. Callers that don't need the return value of
>> gpiochip_remove() can simply ignore it...
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++++++-----------------
>>> include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 2 +-
>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>> index f48817d..4878980 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>> @@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct gpio_chip *gpiochip);
>>> *
>>> * A gpio_chip with any GPIOs still requested may not be removed.
>>> */
>>> -int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>>> +void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>>> {
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> - int status = 0;
>>> unsigned id;
>>>
>>> acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
>>> @@ -1278,24 +1277,15 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>>> of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
>>>
>>> for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
>>> - if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
>>> - status = -EBUSY;
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> - }
>>> - if (status == 0) {
>>> - for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
>>> - chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
>>> -
>>> - list_del(&chip->list);
>>> + if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
>>> + panic("gpiolib.c: gpiochip is still requested\n");
>>
>> panic() sounds a little harsh here. Maybe a dev_err() would be enough?
>>
>>> }
>>> + for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
>>> + chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
>>>
>>> + list_del(&chip->list);
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
>>> -
>>> - if (status == 0)
>>> - gpiochip_unexport(chip);
>>> -
>>> - return status;
>>> + gpiochip_unexport(chip);
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_remove);
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
>>> index 1827b43..72ed256 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
>>> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ extern const char *gpiochip_is_requested(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>>>
>>> /* add/remove chips */
>>> extern int gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip);
>>> -extern int __must_check gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
>>> +void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
>>
>> "extern" should be preserved here for style consistency.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
2014-05-23 17:03 abdoulaye berthe
@ 2014-05-27 13:33 ` Linus Walleij
2014-05-29 22:32 ` abdoulaye berthe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2014-05-27 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: abdoulaye berthe
Cc: Alexandre Courbot, Mika Westerberg, Andy Shevchenko,
Stephen Rothwell, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:03 PM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com> wrote:
> This avoids handling gpiochip remove error in device
> remove handler.
>
> Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>
In general this is the right thing to do.
> for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
> - if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
> - status = -EBUSY;
> - break;
> - }
> - }
> - if (status == 0) {
> - for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
> - chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
> -
> - list_del(&chip->list);
> + if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
> + panic("gpiolib.c: gpiochip is still requested\n");
panic("gpio: removing gpiochip with gpios still requested\");
is more helpful.
But I want a patch that also removes *ALL* users of the return value
from this function in the *same* patch to avoid bisectability issues.
$ git grep gpiochip_remove
Then fix all of them or use coccinelle.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
2014-05-27 13:33 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2014-05-29 22:32 ` abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-29 22:58 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: abdoulaye berthe @ 2014-05-29 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linus.walleij, gnurou, mika.westerberg, andriy.shevchenko, sfr,
linux-gpio, linux-kernel
Cc: abdoulaye berthe
This avoids handling gpiochip remove error in device
remove handler.
Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com>
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++++++-----------------
include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index f48817d..022543f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct gpio_chip *gpiochip);
*
* A gpio_chip with any GPIOs still requested may not be removed.
*/
-int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
+void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
{
unsigned long flags;
- int status = 0;
unsigned id;
acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
@@ -1278,24 +1277,15 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
- if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
- status = -EBUSY;
- break;
- }
- }
- if (status == 0) {
- for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
- chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
-
- list_del(&chip->list);
+ if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
+ panic("gpio: removing gpiochip with gpios still requested\n");
}
+ for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
+ chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
+ list_del(&chip->list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-
- if (status == 0)
- gpiochip_unexport(chip);
-
- return status;
+ gpiochip_unexport(chip);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_remove);
diff --git a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
index 1827b43..72ed256 100644
--- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
+++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ extern const char *gpiochip_is_requested(struct gpio_chip *chip,
/* add/remove chips */
extern int gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip);
-extern int __must_check gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
+void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip);
extern struct gpio_chip *gpiochip_find(void *data,
int (*match)(struct gpio_chip *chip, void *data));
--
1.8.3.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
2014-05-29 22:32 ` abdoulaye berthe
@ 2014-05-29 22:58 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2014-05-29 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: abdoulaye berthe
Cc: linus.walleij, gnurou, mika.westerberg, andriy.shevchenko,
linux-gpio, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 418 bytes --]
Hi abdoulaye,
On Fri, 30 May 2014 00:32:02 +0200 abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> + if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
> + panic("gpio: removing gpiochip with gpios still requested\n");
Someone else already commented that panic is probably overkill ... is
there no way to log this and continue?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-05-29 22:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-05-23 17:12 [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-23 17:39 ` abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-25 7:46 ` Alexandre Courbot
2014-05-25 16:40 ` abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-25 23:47 ` Alexandre Courbot
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-05-23 17:03 abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-27 13:33 ` Linus Walleij
2014-05-29 22:32 ` abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-29 22:58 ` Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).