On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:23:39AM -0700, David Cohen wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:12:16AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:15:20AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 02:26:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > I also noticed that this is missing: > > > >> > > > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > > >> > index e12e5b0..7db5ab9 100644 > > > >> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > > >> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > > >> > @@ -614,3 +614,9 @@ static int __init byt_gpio_init(void) > > > >> > } > > > >> > > > > >> > subsys_initcall(byt_gpio_init); > > > >> > + > > > >> > +static void __exit byt_gpio_exit(void) > > > >> > +{ > > > >> > + platform_driver_unregister(&byt_gpio_driver); > > > >> > +} > > > >> > +module_exit(byt_gpio_exit); > > > >> > > > >> But the Baytrail driver is not a loadable module, it is bool: > > > >> > > > >> config PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL > > > >> bool "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control" > > > >> depends on GPIOLIB && ACPI && X86 > > > >> > > > >> (...) > > > >> > > > >> So I guess it won't need handling for removal, as it can only > > > >> be compiled-in. > > > > > > > > you can still unbind it through sysfs, right ? The thing also already > > > > provides a ->remove() method anyway. > > > > > > Yes you're right of course... > > > > > > But another way to get rid of the dilemma is to set > > > .suppress_bind_attrs = true on the .driver field of the > > > device driver. The one can't unbind it through sysfs anymore. > > > > > > .driver = { > > > .name = "foo", > > > .suppress_bind_attrs = true, > > > }, > > > > > > So one of them need to be done. > > > > > > I suspect this is a kind of common problem... > > > > so instead of taking of taking a three-liner which just makes sure this > > can be used as "intended" you prefer to: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > index e12e5b0..254ba81 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > @@ -587,16 +587,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id byt_gpio_acpi_match[] = { > > }; > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, byt_gpio_acpi_match); > > > > -static int byt_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > -{ > > - struct byt_gpio *vg = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > - > > - pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); > > - gpiochip_remove(&vg->chip); > > - > > - return 0; > > -} > > - > > static struct platform_driver byt_gpio_driver = { > > .probe = byt_gpio_probe, > > .remove = byt_gpio_remove, > > @@ -605,6 +595,7 @@ static struct platform_driver byt_gpio_driver = { > > .owner = THIS_MODULE, > > .pm = &byt_gpio_pm_ops, > > .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(byt_gpio_acpi_match), > > + .suppress_bind_attrs = true, > > }, > > }; > > > > > > I don't quite care since this is not an architecture I work for, but I > > prefer drivers which can be unbound one way or another. Not to mention > > that there's already a ->remove callback on the platform_driver anyway. > > I think adding the module exit + allowing this driver to be a module > would be a good approach. Then we don't need to force generic x86 kernel > binaries to always have this driver. Unless Mathias or Mika knows a > constraint to force this driver to be builtin only. It helps if I CC them when asking for feedback :) Mathias, Mika, do you know any constraint that forces pinctrl-baytrail to be bool? Br, David > > Br, David > > > > > -- > > balbi > > -- 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