Alexander, On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> + gpio_free(gpio); >> >> Freeing the gpio is a little on the iffy side since you actually care >> about keeping the value. Perhaps you can change this to >> devm_gpio_request_one() and avoid the free? I was about to submit a >> patch to do just that (since otherwise you run into trouble if you >> ever defer the probe) but then ran across your patch. > > I could also just return it when the function exits and only free it when we exit the probe function with a negative value. The reason I put it in here was that on probe deferral, the pin simply gets blocked. > > However, I could probably also just completely take the gpio_free() out of this patch and resubmit, as it should be pretty much unrelated. Then you can patch it properly. Sure, if you want to resubmit without the gpio_free() I'll submit a new patch atop yours with the change to devm and people can see if they like it... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |