[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5408AA8C.7040100@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:08:12 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Pramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@...rtplayin.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kernel@...inux.com
CC: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...il.com>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@...com>,
Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: st: Add remove function and remove gpio_chip
on failure
Pramod,
sorry for delay in reply as I was travelling, still in Jet lag.
> Signed-off-by: Pramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@...rtplayin.com>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> index 5475374..9296845 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> @@ -1517,6 +1517,7 @@ static int st_gpiolib_register_bank(struct st_pinctrl *info,
> 0, handle_simple_irq,
> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW);
> if (err) {
> + gpiochip_remove(&bank->gpio_chip);
This change-set looks good.
IMO, you can send a patch for this change set.
> dev_info(dev, "could not add irqchip\n");
> return err;
> }
> @@ -1685,6 +1686,29 @@ static int st_pctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int st_pctl_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
Ideally this driver will not be removed, as other drivers depend on
this, even the serial.
so I see no big achievement in adding the remove functionality, as this
is going to be a dead code and would never be tested.
> + struct st_pinctrl *info = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + struct device_node *child;
> + struct gpio_chip gpio_chip;
> + int bank = 0;
> +
> + if (info->nbanks) {
> + for_each_child_of_node(np, child) {
> + if (of_property_read_bool(child, "gpio-controller")) {
We should not re-parse the DT nodes once we are done with it in the probe.
> + gpio_chip = info->banks[bank].gpio_chip;
> + gpiochip_remove(&gpio_chip);
> + bank++;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
I think the logic is very simple:
while (nbanks--)
gpiochip_remove(&info->banks[bank++].gpio_chip))
thanks,
srini
> + pinctrl_unregister(info->pctl);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static struct platform_driver st_pctl_driver = {
> .driver = {
> .name = "st-pinctrl",
> @@ -1692,6 +1716,7 @@ static struct platform_driver st_pctl_driver = {
> .of_match_table = st_pctl_of_match,
> },
> .probe = st_pctl_probe,
> + .remove = st_pctl_remove,
> };
>
> static int __init st_pctl_init(void)
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists