On 06/09/2014 03:43 PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Of Andrzej Hajda
> ...
>>> You can't error out on module unload, although that's not really relevant
>>> here. gpiochip_remove() is typically called when the device that registered
>>> the GPIO chip is unbound. And despite some remove() callbacks
From: Of Andrzej Hajda
...
> > You can't error out on module unload, although that's not really relevant
> > here. gpiochip_remove() is typically called when the device that registered
> > the GPIO chip is unbound. And despite some remove() callbacks having a
> > return type of int you can not abor
On 06/09/2014 01:29 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 06/09/2014 01:18 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:16:59PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>> On 05/30/2014 07:33 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:3
On 06/09/2014 01:18 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:16:59PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 05/30/2014 07:33 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe
wrote:
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:16:59PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 05/30/2014 07:33 PM, David Daney wrote:
> >On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe
> >>wrote:
> >>>--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> >>>+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 09:35:39AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 05/31/2014 01:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:16:59PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> >>On 05/30/2014 07:33 PM, David Daney wrote:
> >>>On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, May
On 05/31/2014 01:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:16:59PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 05/30/2014 07:33 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe
wrote:
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:16:59PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 05/30/2014 07:33 PM, David Daney wrote:
> >On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe
> >>wrote:
> >>>--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> >>>+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
On 05/30/2014 07:33 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe
wrote:
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1263,10 +1263,9 @@ static void gpiochip_irqchip_remove(struct
gpio_chip *gpiochip)
On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe 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 stil
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:39:15PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > + if (test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &chip->desc[id].flags))
> > + panic("gpio: removing gpiochip with gpios still
> > requested\n");
>
> panic?
>
> Is this likely to happen?
And while we're a
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe 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.
> */
> -i
This avoids handling gpiochip remove error in device
remove handler.
Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++-
include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/driver
13 matches
Mail list logo
