> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 12:11 PM
> To: Stuart Yoder <[email protected]>; Laurentiu Tudor
> <[email protected]>; Roy Pledge <[email protected]>; Leo Li
> <[email protected]>; Horia Geanta <[email protected]>; Pankaj
> Gupta <[email protected]>; Gaurav Jain <[email protected]>;
> Herbert Xu <[email protected]>; David S. Miller
> <[email protected]>; Vinod Koul <[email protected]>; Ioana Ciornei
> <[email protected]>; Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>; Jakub
> Kicinski <[email protected]>; Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>; Y.B. Lu
> <[email protected]>; Diana Madalina Craciun (OSS)
> <[email protected]>; Alex Williamson
> <[email protected]>; Richard Cochran
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] bus: fsl-mc: Make remove function return void
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:41:22PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > many bus remove functions return an integer which is a historic
> > misdesign that makes driver authors assume that there is some kind of
> > error handling in the upper layers. This is wrong however and
> > returning and error code only yields an error message.
> >
> > This series improves the fsl-mc bus by changing the remove callback to
> > return no value instead. As a preparation all drivers are changed to
> > return zero before so that they don't trigger the error message.
>
> Who is supposed to pick up this patch series (or point out a good reason for
> not taking it)?
Previously Greg KH picked up MC bus patches.
If no one is picking up them this time, I probably can take it through the fsl
soc tree.
Regards,
Leo
