From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57D881A06F7 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 03:33:43 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hn18so1110973igb.12 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5388C0F1.90503@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:33:37 -0700 From: David Daney MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abdoulaye berthe Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Cc: driverdevel , Alexandre Courbot , patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, Linux MIPS Mailing List , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Walleij , Linux-sh list , linux-wireless , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , spear-devel@list.st.com, linux-samsungsoc@vger.kernel.org, "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Geert Uytterhoeven , "linux-leds@vger.kernel.org" , m@bues.ch, "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Media Mailing List List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 > >