On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 2:26 PM Koichiro Den <koichiro....@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:26:27AM GMT, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > Hi! Thanks for addressing it. > > > > Is there any place in this file where we'd call remove_chip() without > > calling disable_chip() first? Maybe we can fold disable_chip() into > > remove_chip() and make the patch much smaller? > > My aplogies for being late. > > Yes, there are five places where I intentionally omitted disable_chip() > calls before remove_chip() because the chip wasn't enabled in thoses cases. > I scattered disable_chip() calls only where truly necessary. I also think > explicit enable_chip()/disable_chip() pairing look more clean and readable. > > That being said, I'm fine with your suggestion. > > -Koichiro Den > > > > > Bart
No, that's fine, let me pick it up as is then. Bartosz
