> In the old code (e.g.) mutex_destroy() was called before > pwmchip_remove(). Between these two calls it is possible that a pwm > callback is used which tries to grab the mutex. How do you think about to add a more “imperative mood” for your change description? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=31f4f5b495a62c9a8b15b1c3581acd5efeb9af8c#n151 > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c > @@ -351,6 +351,11 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > struct pwm_omap_dmtimer_chip *omap = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > + int ret; > + > + ret = pwmchip_remove(&omap->chip); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > > if (pm_runtime_active(&omap->dm_timer_pdev->dev)) > omap->pdata->stop(omap->dm_timer); How do you think about to use the following statement variant? + int ret = pwmchip_remove(&omap->chip); Regards, Markus
