Hi Uwe, u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Sat, 1 Apr 2023 18:18:49 +0200: > Hello, > > this series adapts the platform drivers below drivers/mtd/nand to use the > .remove_new() callback. Compared to the traditional .remove() callback > .remove_new() returns no value. This is a good thing because the driver core > doesn't (and cannot) cope for errors during remove. The only effect of a > non-zero return value in .remove() is that the driver core emits a warning. The > device is removed anyhow and an early return from .remove() usually yields a > resource leak. > > By changing the remove callback to return void driver authors cannot > reasonably assume any more that there is some kind of cleanup later. > > As all drivers already return 0 in their .remove callback, they can be > converted trivially. I've looked at the different patches, they look good to me but as they are all trivial and exactly identical, would you mind sending this again all squashed in a single patch? A subsystem-wide conversion seems appropriate. In all cases I plan to take this for the next merge window. I've collected the tags received so far if you want: Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> # atmel Reviewed-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # ingenic Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx> # ingenic Acked-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # intel Reviewed-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # meson Acked-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> # omap Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> # renesas Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> # rockchip Acked-by: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@xxxxxxxxx> # sunxi Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> # tegra BTW, thanks to all of you who reviewed and answered to this thread! This is highly appreciated. Thanks, Miquèl
