Re: [PATCH 0/9] iio: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()

From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@gmail.com>,
	Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@chromium.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
	Jiri Valek - 2N <valek@2n.cz>,
	Colin Ian King <colin.king@intel.com>,
	Brian Masney <masneyb@onstation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] iio: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 18:51:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220501185123.3ba0367b@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220501184149.10b40610@jic23-huawei>

On Sun, 1 May 2022 18:41:49 +0100
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:15:58 +0200
> Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > this series adapts several i2c drivers that emit two error messages if
> > something in their remove function fails. The relevant issue is that the
> > i2c core emits an error message if the remove callback returns a
> > non-zero value but the drivers already emit a (better) message. So
> > these patches change the drivers to return 0 even after an error. Note
> > there is no further error handling in the i2c core, if a remove callback
> > returns an error code, the device is removed anyhow, so the only effect
> > of making the return value zero is that the error message is suppressed.
> > 
> > The motivation for this series is to eventually change the prototype of
> > the i2c remove callback to return void. As a preparation all remove
> > functions should return 0 such that changing the prototype doesn't
> > change behaviour of individual drivers.  
> 
> I think I'd rather have seen these called out as simply moving towards
> this second change as it feels wrong to deliberately not report an error
> so as to avoid repeated error messages!
> 
> Meh, I don't care that strongly and you call out the real reason in each
> patch.

Series looks fine to me, but I'll leave the on list for a few days to let
others have time to take a look.

Worth noting that some of these are crying out for use
of devm_add_action_or_reset() and getting rid of the remove functions
entirely now you've dropped the oddity of them returning non 0.

Low hanging fruit for any newbies who want to do it, or maybe I will
if I get bored :)

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Uwe
> > 
> > Uwe Kleine-König (9):
> >   iio:accel:mc3230: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
> >   iio:accel:stk8312: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
> >   iio:accel:stk8ba50: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
> >   iio:light:bh1780: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
> >   iio:light:isl29028: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
> >   iio:light:jsa1212: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
> >   iio:light:opt3001: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
> >   iio:light:stk3310: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
> >   iio:light:tsl2583: Remove duplicated error reporting in .remove()
> > 
> >  drivers/iio/accel/mc3230.c   | 4 +++-
> >  drivers/iio/accel/stk8312.c  | 4 +++-
> >  drivers/iio/accel/stk8ba50.c | 4 +++-
> >  drivers/iio/light/bh1780.c   | 7 +++----
> >  drivers/iio/light/isl29028.c | 4 +++-
> >  drivers/iio/light/jsa1212.c  | 4 +++-
> >  drivers/iio/light/opt3001.c  | 3 +--
> >  drivers/iio/light/stk3310.c  | 5 ++++-
> >  drivers/iio/light/tsl2583.c  | 4 +++-
> >  9 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> > base-commit: 3123109284176b1532874591f7c81f3837bbdc17  
> 