On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 05:23:40PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 5:08 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The only difference between returning zero or a non-zero value is that
> > for the non-zero case the i2c will print a generic error message
> > ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING), will be ignored").
> >
> > In this case however the driver itself already emitted a more helpful
> > error message, so the additional error message isn't helpful at all.
> >
> > The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove callback return void, making
> > all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.
>
> ...
>
> > + lm3692x_leds_disable(led);
>
> Since it emits a message, perhaps converting it to void also can be
> done here. Otherwise what's the point to have it int?
There is another caller (lm3692x_leds_disable) where the return value is
used. So I didn't convert it to return void.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
