[PATCH v2] bus: sunxi-rsb: make remove callback return void

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 08:11:22AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2020, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 
> > The driver core ignores the return value of struct device_driver::remove
> > because there is only little that can be done. To simplify the quest to
> > make this function return void, let struct sunxi_rsb_driver::remove
> > return void, too. All users already unconditionally return 0, this
> > commit makes this obvious and ensures future users don't behave
> > differently. To simplify even further, make axp20x_device_remove()
> > return void instead of returning 0 unconditionally, too.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> > Hello,
> > 
> > compared to implicit v1 (Message-Id:
> > 20201126074124.1753528-1-u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de) the following changed:
> > 
> >  - Sent to a better chosen set of people
> >  - Add Chen-Yu's Reviewed-by: tag
> > 
> > Chen-Yu wrote in reply to v1:
> > > Since this touches the mfd tree as well, we either need an Ack from Lee,
> > > the mfd maintainer (CC-ed), or let Lee take it in his tree. For the latter,
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
> > >
> > > AFAIK we (sunxi) don't have anything regarding RSB queued up, so there
> > > won't be any conflicts.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Uwe
> > 
> >  drivers/bus/sunxi-rsb.c    | 4 +++-
> >  drivers/mfd/axp20x-i2c.c   | 4 +++-
> >  drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c   | 4 ++--
> >  drivers/mfd/axp20x.c       | 4 +---
> >  include/linux/mfd/axp20x.h | 2 +-
> >  include/linux/sunxi-rsb.h  | 2 +-
> >  6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> There are no dependencies between the MFD and Bus changes as far as I
> can tell.

There are dependencies, because

-static int axp20x_rsb_remove(struct sunxi_rsb_device *rdev)
+static void axp20x_rsb_remove(struct sunxi_rsb_device *rdev)

in drivers/mfd/axp20x-rsb.c must be done together with

--- a/include/linux/sunxi-rsb.h
+++ b/include/linux/sunxi-rsb.h
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static inline void sunxi_rsb_device_set_drvdata(struct sunxi_rsb_device *rdev,
 struct sunxi_rsb_driver {
 	struct device_driver driver;
 	int (*probe)(struct sunxi_rsb_device *rdev);
-	int (*remove)(struct sunxi_rsb_device *rdev);
+	void (*remove)(struct sunxi_rsb_device *rdev);
 };
 [...]

> For the sake of simplicity i.e. to avoid the requirement of
> immutable branch maintenance and an associated pull-request, it would
> be better to split this out into 2 separate patches.

So the base for this statement is gone and the following questions
remain:

 - Do you insist on splitting out the change to axp20x_device_remove()?
 - Do you prefer to ack the mfd part to let the patch (or patches if
   they get split) go via the sunxi people or do you want to take the
   it (them) via mfd?

Looking at next there are four patches touching drivers/bus/sunxi-rsb.c
and none touching drivers/mfd/axp20x* or include/linux/mfd/axp20x.h
which suggests that letting it go via sunxi might be more sensible. IMHO
an immutable branch is not necessary?!

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20210115/eb869f9d/attachment.sig>