Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void

[David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>]

On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@gmail.com> 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
>
>