On Fri 2018-10-05 21:42:06, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > There is hardly any reason to call devm_gpiochip_remove() because the > driver core handles calling gpiochip_remove() automatically. > > To make it harder to introduce new (and probably unneeded) callers, drop > the function. > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt | 1 - > drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 18 +----------------- > include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 1 - > 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt b/Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt > index 7c1bb3d0c222..3f74d645abfa 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt > +++ b/Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt > @@ -254,7 +254,6 @@ GPIO > devm_gpiod_get_optional() > devm_gpiod_put() > devm_gpiochip_add_data() > - devm_gpiochip_remove() > devm_gpio_request() > devm_gpio_request_one() > devm_gpio_free() There's more than one "free" function here, and perhaps this is useful in some cases... Dunno. Renaming to make people think twice sounds ok, but I'm not sure if outright removal is good idea. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
