[PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab at gmail.com> 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?

Is this likely to happen?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at 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