From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] gpio: move gpio_ensure_requested() into legacy C file Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:48:11 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1406013463-19218-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <1406013463-19218-6-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com ([209.85.218.48]:38800 "EHLO mail-oi0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757616AbaGWPsM (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:48:12 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id h136so1000515oig.21 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:48:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1406013463-19218-6-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Alexandre Courbot Cc: "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandre Courbot On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > gpio_ensure_requested() only makes sense when using the integer-based > GPIO API, so make sure it is called from there instead of the gpiod > API which we know cannot be called with a non-requested GPIO anyway. > > The uses of gpio_ensure_requested() in the gpiod API were kind of > out-of-place anyway, so putting them in gpio-legacy.c helps clearing the > code. > > Actually, considering the time this ensure_requested mechanism has been > around, maybe we should just turn this patch into "remove > gpio_ensure_requested()" if we know for sure that no user depend on it > anymore? > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot Patch applied. Make a separate patch on top to delete this thing since there are ZERO in-kernel users. The only place it's used in a comment in arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/vision_ep9307.c .... Yours, Linus Walleij