[Dropped a few people from Cc that are not reachable (Harry Morris, Charles-Antoine Couret, Marco Felsch)] On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:47:59AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 18:52:01 +0100 > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The value returned by an spi driver's remove function is mostly ignored. > > (Only an error message is printed if the value is non-zero that the > > error is ignored.) > > > > So change the prototype of the remove function to return no value. This > > way driver authors are not tempted to assume that passing an error to > > the upper layer is a good idea. All drivers are adapted accordingly. > > There is no intended change of behaviour, all callbacks were prepared to > > return 0 before. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > For iio drivers. > > Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > As you mention in the cover letter we'll be wanting an immutable > branch somewhere to pull into subsystem trees. > > Soon is good if possible as otherwise we'll end up with a bunch of merge > conflicts getting resolved in next. Yes, I considered creating a tag to pull already when sending out this series, but I guessed delaying that a little bit to give people the opportunity to ack would be a good idea. @broonie: Do you think this change is a good idea? Would you require some more acks for the preparatory patches? I had hoped to get Acks from the corresponding maintainers, maybe they are busy and missed this series as I put them on Cc: only. I promoted them to To: in this mail. Or is it too ambitious to get this in during the next merge window? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
