Hello Jonathan,

On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 03:38:55PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2022 18:51:23 +0100
> Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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 :)
> 
> Series applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for
> 0-day to see if it can find anything we missed.

They are in testing
(https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git/log/?h=testing)
but not in togreg
(https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git/log/?h=togreg).

Not sure if that is how it's supposed to be? Only togreg seems to be in
next.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |