[PATCH] hwtracing: Switch back to struct platform_driver::remove()

[Suzuki K Poulose]

Hi

On 11/11/2024 14:12, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at baylibre.com> writes:
> 
>> After commit 0edb555a65d1 ("platform: Make platform_driver::remove()
>> return void") .remove() is (again) the right callback to implement for
>> platform drivers.
>>
>> Convert all platform drivers below drivers/hwtracing to use .remove(),
>> with the eventual goal to drop struct platform_driver::remove_new(). As
>> .remove() and .remove_new() have the same prototypes, conversion is done
>> by just changing the structure member name in the driver initializer.
>>
>> Also adapt some whitespace to make indention consistent.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at baylibre.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin at linux.intel.com>
> 
>> ---
>> Hello,
>>
>> I did a single patch for all of drivers/hwtracing. While I usually
>> prefer to do one logical change per patch, this seems to be
>> overengineering here as the individual changes are really trivial and
>> shouldn't be much in the way for stable backports. But I'll happily
>> split the patch if you prefer it split. Maybe split for coresight vs.
>> intel_th? Also if you object the indentation stuff, I can rework that.
> 
> I'm fine with it as is.
> 
>> This is based on today's next, if conflicts arise when you apply it at
>> some later time and don't want to resolve them, feel free to just drop
>> the changes to the conflicting files. I'll notice and followup at a
>> later time then. Or ask me for a fixed resend. (Having said that, I
>> recommend b4 am -3 + git am -3 which should resolve most conflicts just
>> fine.)
> 
> Does anybody want to pick this up or should I? I'm fine either way, but
> if there are any conflicts they won't be from my end of things, so it
> might make sense to take it via the coresight path.

I am happy to take them via coresight tree and queue them for v6.14

Suzuki

> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Alex