| Message ID | 20220331133132.296971-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | media: i2c: dw9714: Return zero in remove callback | expand |
Hello, On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:31:32PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > The only effect of returning an error code in an i2c remove callback is > that the i2c core emits a generic warning and still removes the device. > > So even if disabling the regulator fails it's sensible to further cleanup > and then return zero to only emit a single error message. > > This patch is a preparation for making i2c remove callbacks return void. > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > --- > drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > index cd7008ad8f2f..982ed8afebf5 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > @@ -201,7 +201,6 @@ static int dw9714_remove(struct i2c_client *client) > if (ret) { > dev_err(&client->dev, > "Failed to disable vcc: %d\n", ret); > - return ret; > } > } > pm_runtime_set_suspended(&client->dev); Who cares for this driver and so for this patch? Best regards Uwe
Hi Uwe, On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 09:13:45PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:31:32PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > The only effect of returning an error code in an i2c remove callback is > > that the i2c core emits a generic warning and still removes the device. > > > > So even if disabling the regulator fails it's sensible to further cleanup > > and then return zero to only emit a single error message. > > > > This patch is a preparation for making i2c remove callbacks return void. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > --- > > drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c | 1 - > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > > index cd7008ad8f2f..982ed8afebf5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > > @@ -201,7 +201,6 @@ static int dw9714_remove(struct i2c_client *client) > > if (ret) { > > dev_err(&client->dev, > > "Failed to disable vcc: %d\n", ret); > > - return ret; > > } > > } > > pm_runtime_set_suspended(&client->dev); > > Who cares for this driver and so for this patch? I do. The patch is in the media stage tree now (you should have received an e-mail about it) from where it eventually gets to the media tree.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:18:45AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Uwe, > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 09:13:45PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:31:32PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > The only effect of returning an error code in an i2c remove callback is > > > that the i2c core emits a generic warning and still removes the device. > > > > > > So even if disabling the regulator fails it's sensible to further cleanup > > > and then return zero to only emit a single error message. > > > > > > This patch is a preparation for making i2c remove callbacks return void. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > > --- > > > drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c | 1 - > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > > > index cd7008ad8f2f..982ed8afebf5 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > > > @@ -201,7 +201,6 @@ static int dw9714_remove(struct i2c_client *client) > > > if (ret) { > > > dev_err(&client->dev, > > > "Failed to disable vcc: %d\n", ret); > > > - return ret; > > > } > > > } > > > pm_runtime_set_suspended(&client->dev); > > > > Who cares for this driver and so for this patch? > > I do. > > The patch is in the media stage tree now (you should have received an > e-mail about it) from where it eventually gets to the media tree. Ah I did. I wasn't aware of it, because the mail doesn't have the in-reply-to header set such that my MUA doesn't sort it to the patch mail. I saw this mail now. Let me note that it's intransparent for me how your Sob line was added to the patch. The mail says the patch was queued, does that mean it's about to be applied and will appear in next soon? Or is it only queued to be looked at? (I assume the former.) Best regards Uwe
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:02:55AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:18:45AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Hi Uwe, > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 09:13:45PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:31:32PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > The only effect of returning an error code in an i2c remove callback is > > > > that the i2c core emits a generic warning and still removes the device. > > > > > > > > So even if disabling the regulator fails it's sensible to further cleanup > > > > and then return zero to only emit a single error message. > > > > > > > > This patch is a preparation for making i2c remove callbacks return void. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c | 1 - > > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > > > > index cd7008ad8f2f..982ed8afebf5 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c > > > > @@ -201,7 +201,6 @@ static int dw9714_remove(struct i2c_client *client) > > > > if (ret) { > > > > dev_err(&client->dev, > > > > "Failed to disable vcc: %d\n", ret); > > > > - return ret; > > > > } > > > > } > > > > pm_runtime_set_suspended(&client->dev); > > > > > > Who cares for this driver and so for this patch? > > > > I do. > > > > The patch is in the media stage tree now (you should have received an > > e-mail about it) from where it eventually gets to the media tree. > > Ah I did. I wasn't aware of it, because the mail doesn't have the > in-reply-to header set such that my MUA doesn't sort it to the patch > mail. The mail is not sent to the LMML, but the submitter (as others whose addresses can be found in git tags) and another list. This would still allow to connect the two. This is up to Mauro's scripts. > > I saw this mail now. Let me note that it's intransparent for me how your > Sob line was added to the patch. The mail says the patch was queued, > does that mean it's about to be applied and will appear in next soon? Or > is it only queued to be looked at? (I assume the former.) The media submaintainer trees --- such as mine --- are not pulled to the media tree. Instead Mauro picks the patches to the media tree individually. My tree is here: <URL:https://git.linuxtv.org/sailus/media_tree.git/>
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c index cd7008ad8f2f..982ed8afebf5 100644 --- a/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c @@ -201,7 +201,6 @@ static int dw9714_remove(struct i2c_client *client) if (ret) { dev_err(&client->dev, "Failed to disable vcc: %d\n", ret); - return ret; } } pm_runtime_set_suspended(&client->dev);
The only effect of returning an error code in an i2c remove callback is that the i2c core emits a generic warning and still removes the device. So even if disabling the regulator fails it's sensible to further cleanup and then return zero to only emit a single error message. This patch is a preparation for making i2c remove callbacks return void. Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> --- drivers/media/i2c/dw9714.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)