On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Heads up. Requesting ACKs for this patch or I'm atleast warning that it will be > applied. We're getting rid of the return value from gpiochip_remove(). > > > this remove all reference to gpio_remove retval in all driver > > except pinctrl and gpio. the same thing is done for gpio and > > pinctrl in two different patches. > > > > Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@xxxxxxxxx> > (...) > > I think this patch probably needs to be broken down per-subsystem as it > hits all over the map. But let's start requesting ACKs for the > individual pieces. > Actually I think it will be OK to merge because there is likely not much churn > around these code sites. > > I'm a bit torn between just wanting a big patch for this hitting drivers/gpio > and smaller patches hitting one subsystem at a time. We should be able > to hammer this in one switch strike. It would be better if you could devise a plan to make the switch a subsystem at a time. [...] > > drivers/mfd/asic3.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/mfd/htc-i2cpld.c | 8 +------- > > drivers/mfd/sm501.c | 17 +++-------------- > > drivers/mfd/tc6393xb.c | 13 ++++--------- > > drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c | 8 ++------ > > Lee/Sam can either of you ACK this? I don't see any code? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
