The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
returning an error code. However the value returned is (mostly) ignored
and this typically results in resource leaks. To improve here there is a
quest to make the remove callback return void. In the first step of this
quest all drivers are converted to .remove_new() which already returns
void.

Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
callback to the void returning variant.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/clk/clk-scpi.c | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-scpi.c b/drivers/clk/clk-scpi.c
index a39af7616b13..3fb4003453ee 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk-scpi.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk-scpi.c
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static int scpi_clk_add(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
 	return of_clk_add_hw_provider(np, scpi_of_clk_src_get, clk_data);
 }
 
-static int scpi_clocks_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+static void scpi_clocks_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
 	struct device_node *child, *np = dev->of_node;
@@ -258,7 +258,6 @@ static int scpi_clocks_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child)
 		of_clk_del_provider(np);
-	return 0;
 }
 
 static int scpi_clocks_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
@@ -305,7 +304,7 @@ static struct platform_driver scpi_clocks_driver = {
 		.of_match_table = scpi_clocks_ids,
 	},
 	.probe = scpi_clocks_probe,
-	.remove = scpi_clocks_remove,
+	.remove_new = scpi_clocks_remove,
 };
 module_platform_driver(scpi_clocks_driver);
 
-- 
2.39.1

Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2023-03-12 09:14:57)
> The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
> many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
> returning an error code. However the value returned is (mostly) ignored
> and this typically results in resource leaks. To improve here there is a
> quest to make the remove callback return void. In the first step of this
> quest all drivers are converted to .remove_new() which already returns
> void.
> 
> Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> callback to the void returning variant.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> ---

Applied to clk-next

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
> many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
> returning an error code. However the value returned is (mostly) ignored
> and this typically results in resource leaks. To improve here there is a
> quest to make the remove callback return void. In the first step of this
> quest all drivers are converted to .remove_new() which already returns
> void.
> 
> Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> callback to the void returning variant.
>

Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

Let me know if you want me to pick up instead.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

Hello,

[put the clk maintainers in To:]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:01:44PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
> > many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
> > returning an error code. However the value returned is (mostly) ignored
> > and this typically results in resource leaks. To improve here there is a
> > quest to make the remove callback return void. In the first step of this
> > quest all drivers are converted to .remove_new() which already returns
> > void.
> > 
> > Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> > callback to the void returning variant.
> >
> 
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> 
> Let me know if you want me to pick up instead.

Honestly I don't know. I expected that the series is applied completely
via the clk maintainers, but the samsung patch was already taken
individually.

Michael and Stephen: It would probably be helpful if you shared your
thoughs about this. For me both options are fine.

Best regards
Uwe

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

Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2023-03-16 08:48:50)
> Hello,
> 
> [put the clk maintainers in To:]
> 
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:01:44PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K�nig wrote:
> > > The .remove() callback for a platform driver returns an int which makes
> > > many driver authors wrongly assume it's possible to do error handling by
> > > returning an error code. However the value returned is (mostly) ignored
> > > and this typically results in resource leaks. To improve here there is a
> > > quest to make the remove callback return void. In the first step of this
> > > quest all drivers are converted to .remove_new() which already returns
> > > void.
> > > 
> > > Trivially convert this driver from always returning zero in the remove
> > > callback to the void returning variant.
> > >
> > 
> > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > 
> > Let me know if you want me to pick up instead.
> 
> Honestly I don't know. I expected that the series is applied completely
> via the clk maintainers, but the samsung patch was already taken
> individually.
> 
> Michael and Stephen: It would probably be helpful if you shared your
> thoughs about this. For me both options are fine.
> 

I will pick up whatever isn't picked by SoC maintainers.