On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct gpio_chip *gpiochip);
*
* A gpio_chip with any GPIOs still requested may not be removed.
*/
-int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
+void gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
{
unsigned long flags;
- int status = 0;
unsigned id;
acpi_gpiochip_remove(chip);
@@ -1278,24 +1277,15 @@ int gpiochip_remove(struct gpio_chip *chip)
of_gpiochip_remove(chip);
for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++) {
- if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags)) {
- status = -EBUSY;
- break;
- }
- }
- if (status == 0) {
- for (id = 0; id < chip->ngpio; id++)
- chip->desc[id].chip = NULL;
-
- list_del(&chip->list);
+ if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
+ panic("gpio: removing gpiochip with gpios still requested\n");
panic?
NACK to the patch for this reason. The strongest thing you should do
here is WARN.
That said, I am not sure why we need this whole patch set in the first
place.
David Daney
Is this likely to happen?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
