Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 16:48:50 +0100
From:   Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/30] clk: scpi: Convert to platform remove callback
 returning void
Message-ID: <20230316154850.wxwiztump5de3xt4@pengutronix.de>
References: <20230312161512.2715500-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
 <20230312161512.2715500-16-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
 <20230316150144.2aap5otmgblj24ty@bogus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5mrnsz43afupa3b4"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230316150144.2aap5otmgblj24ty@bogus>
Precedence: bulk


--5mrnsz43afupa3b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

[put the clk maintainers in To:]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:01:44PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:
> > The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
> > many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
> > returning an error code. However the value returned is (mostly) ignored
> > and this typically results in resource leaks. To improve here there is a
> > quest to make the remove callback return void. In the first step of this
> > quest all drivers are converted to .remove_new() which already returns
> > void.
> >=20
> > Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> > callback to the void returning variant.
> >
>=20
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>=20
> Let me know if you want me to pick up instead.

Honestly I don't know. I expected that the series is applied completely
via the clk maintainers, but the samsung patch was already taken
individually.

Michael and Stephen: It would probably be helpful if you shared your
thoughs about this. For me both options are fine.

Best regards
Uwe

--=20
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

--5mrnsz43afupa3b4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEfnIqFpAYrP8+dKQLwfwUeK3K7AkFAmQTOl8ACgkQwfwUeK3K
7AkNqQf/UA7zXQz4+AFWQFgpi30qcC1O218m/8U75zgzwkIyDgraoGDl+NQJDp0l
o1tHfdO6/7ghxY+Fm0853gWP8+dBoui1wkjaqZA6MyMmS5PPPtK0sGiyrubm3ZPs
5ReuoNPdPr4IdHNhihYxp872N5IBCmjijbyw+8o8Zbgk7ADLIjP+CIAb4YWuDLy7
6CZMDBTImHiAZW0/fB2PQK8iGVosNObpqlQWR67lze7LtVJ+ioPKyQOLgo0yLxym
AldCyyUdMPmoGxLP4gOfZqpgBrdorfE+uUfU1OiEVPK4xZRvyDo+DSxSxOdefEEb
bttxdh9rF8T6mU5OFnv7tWYbwp/11A==
=KvDT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5mrnsz43afupa3b4--