linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] pwm: visconti: Add Toshiba Visconti SoC PWM support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:49:10 +0900
From:   Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro1.iwamatsu@...hiba.co.jp>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, punit1.agrawal@...hiba.co.jp,
        yuji2.ishikawa@...hiba.co.jp, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] pwm: visconti: Add Toshiba Visconti SoC PWM
 support

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 03:56:58PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 06:34:55AM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> > > > +static int visconti_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct visconti_pwm_chip *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > +
> > > > +	return pwmchip_remove(&priv->chip);
> > > 
> > > I think Uwe would prefer this to be done separately because he's working
> > > towards removing the return value from pwmchip_remove() and if we start
> > > ignoring it in new drivers that will make life easier going forward.
> > > 
> > > So this should just be:
> > > 
> > > 	pwmchip_remove(&priv->chip);
> > > 
> > > 	return 0;
> > 
> > I understand your suggestion.
> > However, it looks like the pwmchip_remove() hasn't been updated yet.
> > I will wait for the update of pwmchip_remove.
> 
> pwmchip_remove will always return 0 since b2c200e3f2fd which is in v5.3.
> So Thierry's suggestion is safe and indeed welcome.

Sorry, I was looking at a different function.
I will fix this.

Best regards,
  Nobuhiro