Hello Mark,

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:41:39PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 04:35:40PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 
> > Yes, I thought that this is not the final fix. I just sent the minimal
> > change to prevent the imbalance. So if I understand correctly, I will
> > have to respin with the following squashed into patch 1:
> 
> > -	if (sdrv->probe || sdrv->remove) {
> > -		sdrv->driver.probe = spi_drv_probe;
> > -		sdrv->driver.remove = spi_drv_remove;
> > -	}
> > +	sdrv->driver.probe = spi_drv_probe;
> > +	sdrv->driver.remove = spi_drv_remove;
> >  	if (sdrv->shutdown)
> >  		sdrv->driver.shutdown = spi_drv_shutdown;
> >  	return driver_register(&sdrv->driver);
> 
> I think so, I'd need to see the full patch to check of course.

ok.
 
> > (Not sure this makes a difference in real life, are there drivers
> > without a .probe callback?)
> 
> Your changelog seemed to say that it would make remove mandatory.

No, that's not what the patch did. It made unconditional use of
spi_drv_remove(), but an spi_driver without .remove() was still ok. I
will reword to make this clearer.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |