On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Tien Hock Loh <thloh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry I was away from my mail for the past few weeks. > This isn't intentional, should be a bug I overlook. The fix is correct. Interestingly that has never been caught by reviewers despite 10 respins of your series! Thanks for confirming. Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> > > On Sun, 2015-06-21 at 16:25 +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Masahiro Yamada >> <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > The remove callback never succeeds, which seems odd. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > >> > I wonder why nobody has pointed this out before me. >> > I am suspecting -EIO might be intentional. >> > I hope some Altera guys will give me comments. >> > >> > >> > drivers/gpio/gpio-altera.c | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-altera.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-altera.c >> > index c653c83..5861550 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-altera.c >> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-altera.c >> > @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ static int altera_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > >> > of_mm_gpiochip_remove(&altera_gc->mmchip); >> > >> > - return -EIO; >> > + return 0; >> >> That looks weird indeed. Tien, can you comment on this? > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in