Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-27 Thread Linus Walleij
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the > driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on > remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with > platform_driver_probe() which

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-27 Thread Linus Walleij
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:32:13PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> For a bool driver of this type (typically compiled in and probed >> at boot) that makes most sense to me. > > Hmm, I do not think this is a good justification for disabling

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-27 Thread Linus Walleij
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:32:13PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: For a bool driver of this type (typically compiled in and probed at boot) that makes most sense to me. Hmm, I do not think this is a good

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-27 Thread Linus Walleij
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote: Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-25 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:32:13PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Even if bus is not

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-25 Thread Linus Walleij
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov >> wrote: >> >> > Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the >> > driver via sysfs, so we should

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-25 Thread Linus Walleij
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote: Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-25 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:32:13PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-18 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > wrote: > > > Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the > > driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on > > remove() methods. The

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-18 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:30:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote: Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on remove()

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-17 Thread Linus Walleij
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the > driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on > remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with > platform_driver_probe() which

Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-17 Thread Linus Walleij
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote: Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with

[PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-09 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with platform_driver_probe() which specifically disables sysfs bind/unbind attributes. Signed-off-by:

[PATCH] gpio: gpio-tb10x: remove incorrect __exit markup

2015-03-09 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with platform_driver_probe() which specifically disables sysfs bind/unbind attributes. Signed-off-by: