Hi Boris, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 7 May 2020 14:11:03 +0200: > On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:00:33 +0200 > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > + > > +static void anfc_chips_cleanup(struct arasan_nfc *nfc) > > +{ > > + struct anand *anand, *tmp; > > + > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(anand, tmp, &nfc->chips, node) { > > + nand_release(&anand->chip); > > ret = mtd_device_unregister(nand_to_mtd(&anand->chip)); > WARN_ON(ret); > nand_cleanup(&anand->chip); > > Or maybe add this WARN_ON() to nand_release() so we don't have to ask > people to use mtd_device_unregister() + nand_cleanup(). I don't get your point here? I'm not against adding a warn_on between both functions but it's not related to this driver? > We really > should fix that at some point (allocate nand_chip and mtd_info > separately and leave a dummy mtd_info object with all hooks returning > ENODEV when the unregister fails). Yes, we should fix that. > > > + list_del(&anand->node); > > + } > > +} Thanks, Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/