On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:19:49PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:30:32PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:12:23PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Mon 2022-01-10 08:23:17, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 12:17:07PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > Up to now pca9532_destroy_devices() returns always zero because it's > > > > > always called with data != NULL. Remove the never-taken error path and > > > > > make it return void which makes it easier to see in the callers that > > > > > there is no error to handle. > > > > > > > > > > Also the return value of i2c remove callbacks is ignored anyway. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Ping. This patch is part of an effort to make the i2c remove callback a > > > > void function, too. Are there any concerns, or plans to pick up this > > > > patch? > > > > > > It looks like a simple cleanup with no effect outside of the > > > driver. Am I wrong? > > > > Yes, there is no intended effect on the compiled code. > > ah, oh, the answer should have been "No". :-) > > > The reason I want this patch is that I work on making the i2c remove > > callback return void. As this has to touch all i2c drivers, the changes > > to these should be as simple as possible, so ideally I just want to drop > > the "return 0" there. Every return that might return a value != 0 is > > more complicated to handle there. > > > > So it's just to prepare this change an to make the code a tad easier to > > read for a human. > > Is this convincing? Is this patch still on the "to-review" (or still > better the "to-apply") list? The patch was sent initially before the v5.15 release. So it didn't receive a maintainer decision during three merge windows. Is this patch still considered? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
