Hello,
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:16:06AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Returning an error value in an i2c remove callback results in an error
> message being emitted by the i2c core, but otherwise it doesn't make a
> difference. The device goes away anyhow and the devm cleanups are
> called.
>
> As stk3310_set_state() already emits an error message on failure and the
> additional error message by the i2c core doesn't add any useful
> information, change the return value to zero to suppress this message.
>
> This patch is a preparation for making i2c remove callbacks return void.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/light/stk3310.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/stk3310.c b/drivers/iio/light/stk3310.c
> index 1d02dfbc29d1..95a98af08b8a 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/light/stk3310.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/light/stk3310.c
> @@ -627,9 +627,12 @@ static int stk3310_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> static int stk3310_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> {
> struct iio_dev *indio_dev = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> + int ret;
>
> iio_device_unregister(indio_dev);
> - return stk3310_set_state(iio_priv(indio_dev), STK3310_STATE_STANDBY);
> + stk3310_set_state(iio_priv(indio_dev), STK3310_STATE_STANDBY);
> +
> + return 0;
> }
I just found a fixup in my tree that drops the
+ int ret;
that I failed to squash in before sending.
Jonathan: Tell me if you want to fixup yourself when you apply, or if
you prefer a v2. If the latter, only for this patch or the whole series?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
