On 05/30/2014 04:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

--- 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@linux-m68k.org

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