On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 08:53:43AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Stephen, > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:02:53PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2023-09-11 08:15:48) > > > 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 ignored (apart > > > from emitting a warning) 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. Eventually after all drivers > > > are converted, .remove_new() is renamed to .remove(). > > > > > > qcom_msm8996_cbf_icc_remove() returned zero unconditionally. After > > > changing this function to return void instead, the driver can be > > > converted trivially to use .remove_new(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > Do you want to take this? Otherwise, I can apply it to fixes. > > if "you" == "Uwe Kleine-König": Please take it via your tree. There is > still much to do before the next synchronous step, so there is no urge. > If the patch goes in during the next merge window that's fine, too. > @Stephen, should I just pick this in the Qcom tree for 6.7 then? Regards, Bjorn
