Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: remove use of gpiochip_remove() retval

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014, Linus Walleij wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Oct 2014, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Pramod Gurav
> >> <pramod.gurav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Get rid of using return value from gpiochip_remove() as it returns
> >> > void.
> >> >
> >> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > CC: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Cc: linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Pramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Already fixed in the GPIO tree.
> >
> > What does that mean?  That it doesn't need fixing here?
> 
> No. I think you already ACKed the patch fixing it in the GPIO
> tree...

No I don't need to apply the patch 'cos it's already fixed? Or, no
it's not already fixed and I need to apply the patch?

> There has been some misunderstanding and duplicate patches
> fixing already fixed problems are flying around.

I'm guessing from this commend that it _is_ already fixed and I _do
not_ need to apply this patch.

So for now I'm not applying this patch unless told otherwise.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html