Hi,
maybe its already been discussed but ...
Le vendredi 23 février 2024 à 13:59 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König a écrit :
> 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() will be renamed to .remove().
>
> Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> callback to the void returning variant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/media/platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu.c b/drivers/media/platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu.c
> index 0d90b5820bef..1b3df5b04249 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu.c
> @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ static int wave5_vpu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int wave5_vpu_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +static void wave5_vpu_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct vpu_device *dev = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
>
> @@ -262,8 +262,6 @@ static int wave5_vpu_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> v4l2_device_unregister(&dev->v4l2_dev);
> wave5_vdi_release(&pdev->dev);
> ida_destroy(&dev->inst_ida);
> -
> - return 0;
> }
>
> static const struct wave5_match_data ti_wave521c_data = {
> @@ -283,7 +281,7 @@ static struct platform_driver wave5_vpu_driver = {
> .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(wave5_dt_ids),
> },
> .probe = wave5_vpu_probe,
> - .remove = wave5_vpu_remove,
> + .remove_new = wave5_vpu_remove,
What if we have another screw up ? remove_new_new ? Why not just remove the int
across the tree instead ? Or perhaps its a two step plane ?
Nicolas
> };
>
> module_platform_driver(wave5_vpu_driver);
