[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YoyQ2dXqIbHT/sPi@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:01:29 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: twl6030: Make twl6030_exit_irq() return void
On Mon, 23 May 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Lee,
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 05:24:21PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >
> > > This function returns 0 unconditionally, so there is no benefit in
> > > returning a value at all and make the caller do error checking.
> > >
> > > Also the caller (twl_remove()) cannot do anything sensible with an error
> > > code. Passing it up the call stack isn't a good option because the i2c core
> > > ignores error codes (apart from emitting an error message).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/mfd/twl-core.c | 4 ++--
> > > drivers/mfd/twl-core.h | 2 +-
> > > drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c | 3 +--
> > > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > Applied, thanks.
>
> I would have expected these to appear in next since you wrote to have
> applied this series. But they have not though your claim to have applied
> them is over three weeks old now?! :-\
Don't worry. They're both applied and will be in v5.19.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists