2023-01-14 14:58:58

by Deepak R Varma

Subject: nvkm_devinit_func.disable() to be made void

Hello,
It appears that the callback function disable() of struct nvkm_devinit_func does
not need return U64 and can be transformed to be a void. This will impact a few
drivers that have currently implementation of this callback since those always
return 0ULL. So,

Change from
8 struct nvkm_devinit_func {
... ...
15 u64 (*disable)(struct nvkm_devinit *);
1 };

Change to
8 struct nvkm_devinit_func {
... ...
15 void (*disable)(struct nvkm_devinit *);
1 };


I am unsure if this change will have any UAPI impact. Hence wanted to confirm
with you if you think this transformation is useful. If yes, I will be happy to
submit a patch for your consideration.

Please let me know.

Thank you,
./drv

2023-01-16 17:58:32

by Deepak R Varma

Subject: Re: nvkm_devinit_func.disable() to be made void

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 08:10:43PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> Hello,
> It appears that the callback function disable() of struct nvkm_devinit_func does
> not need return U64 and can be transformed to be a void. This will impact a few
> drivers that have currently implementation of this callback since those always
> return 0ULL. So,
>
> Change from
> 8 struct nvkm_devinit_func {
> ... ...
> 15 u64 (*disable)(struct nvkm_devinit *);
> 1 };
>
> Change to
> 8 struct nvkm_devinit_func {
> ... ...
> 15 void (*disable)(struct nvkm_devinit *);
> 1 };
>
>
> I am unsure if this change will have any UAPI impact. Hence wanted to confirm
> with you if you think this transformation is useful. If yes, I will be happy to
> submit a patch for your consideration.

Hello,
May I request a response on my query? Shall I proceed with submitting a patch
proposal for consideration?

Thank you,
./drv

>
> Please let me know.
>
> Thank you,
> ./drv
>
>