From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Daney Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:33:37 -0700 Message-ID: <5388C0F1.90503@gmail.com> References: <20140530094025.3b78301e@canb.auug.org.au> <1401449454-30895-1-git-send-email-berthe.ab@gmail.com> <1401449454-30895-2-git-send-email-berthe.ab@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: abdoulaye berthe Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , m@bues.ch, "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux MIPS Mailing List , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Linux-sh list , linux-wireless , patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-leds@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Media Mailing List , linux-samsungsoc@vger.kernel.org, spear-devel@list.st.com, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe wrote: >> --- 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"); > > panic? NACK to the patch for this reason. The strongest thing you should do here is WARN. That said, I am not sure why we need this whole patch set in the first place. David Daney > > Is this likely to happen? > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds > >