[0/6] bus: fsl-mc: Make remove function return void

  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.

Best regards
Uwe

Uwe Kleine-König (6):
  bus: fsl-mc: Only warn once about errors on device unbind
  bus: fsl-mc: dprc: Push down error message from fsl_mc_driver_remove()
  bus: fsl-mc: fsl-mc-allocator: Drop if block with always wrong
    condition
  bus: fsl-mc: fsl-mc-allocator: Improve error reporting
  soc: fsl: dpio: Suppress duplicated error reporting on device remove
  bus: fsl-mc: Make remove function return void

 drivers/bus/fsl-mc/dprc-driver.c              | 12 ++++-----
 drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-allocator.c         | 27 ++++++++++---------
 drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-bus.c               |  7 +----
 drivers/crypto/caam/caamalg_qi2.c             |  4 +--
 drivers/dma/fsl-dpaa2-qdma/dpaa2-qdma.c       |  4 +--
 .../net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-eth.c  |  4 +--
 .../net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-ptp.c  |  4 +--
 .../ethernet/freescale/dpaa2/dpaa2-switch.c   |  4 +--
 drivers/soc/fsl/dpio/dpio-driver.c            |  8 +-----
 drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c             |  3 +--
 include/linux/fsl/mc.h                        |  2 +-
 11 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)


base-commit: fe15c26ee26efa11741a7b632e9f23b01aca4cc6
  

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.
> 
> Best regards
> Uwe
> 
> Uwe Kleine-König (6):
>   bus: fsl-mc: Only warn once about errors on device unbind
>   bus: fsl-mc: dprc: Push down error message from fsl_mc_driver_remove()
>   bus: fsl-mc: fsl-mc-allocator: Drop if block with always wrong
>     condition
>   bus: fsl-mc: fsl-mc-allocator: Improve error reporting
>   soc: fsl: dpio: Suppress duplicated error reporting on device remove
>   bus: fsl-mc: Make remove function return void
> 

Reviewed-by: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>
Tested-by: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com> # sanity checks
  

On 3/11/2023 12:41 AM, 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.
> 
> Best regards
> Uwe
> 
> Uwe Kleine-König (6):
>    bus: fsl-mc: Only warn once about errors on device unbind
>    bus: fsl-mc: dprc: Push down error message from fsl_mc_driver_remove()
>    bus: fsl-mc: fsl-mc-allocator: Drop if block with always wrong
>      condition
>    bus: fsl-mc: fsl-mc-allocator: Improve error reporting
>    soc: fsl: dpio: Suppress duplicated error reporting on device remove
>    bus: fsl-mc: Make remove function return void
> 

Thanks for the series, Uwe. Did a quick boot test with ACPI, so:

Reviewed-by: Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>
Tested-by: Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>
  

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)?

Best regards
Uwe
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 12:11 PM
> To: Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@gmail.com>; Laurentiu Tudor
> <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>; Roy Pledge <roy.pledge@nxp.com>; Leo Li
> <leoyang.li@nxp.com>; Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@nxp.com>; Pankaj
> Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>; Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@nxp.com>;
> Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>; David S. Miller
> <davem@davemloft.net>; Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>; Ioana Ciornei
> <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>; Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>; Jakub
> Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>; Y.B. Lu
> <yangbo.lu@nxp.com>; Diana Madalina Craciun (OSS)
> <diana.craciun@oss.nxp.com>; Alex Williamson
> <alex.williamson@redhat.com>; Richard Cochran
> <richardcochran@gmail.com>
> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org;
> kernel@pengutronix.de; dmaengine@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> 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
  

Hello Leo,

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:30:05PM +0000, Leo Li wrote:
> > 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.

I guess Greg won't pick up this series as he didn't get a copy of it :-)

Browsing through the history of drivers/bus/fsl-mc there is no
consistent maintainer to see. So if you can take it, that's very
appreciated.

Best regards
Uwe
  

Hello Leo,

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:30:05PM +0000, Leo Li wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> I guess Greg won't pick up this series as he didn't get a copy of it :-)
> 
> Browsing through the history of drivers/bus/fsl-mc there is no
> consistent maintainer to see. So if you can take it, that's very
> appreciated.

My mail was meant encouraging, maybe it was too subtile? I'll try again:

Yes, please apply, that would be wonderful!

:-)

Thanks
Uwe
  

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:44 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Leo,
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:30:05PM +0000, Leo Li wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > I guess Greg won't pick up this series as he didn't get a copy of it :-)
> >
> > Browsing through the history of drivers/bus/fsl-mc there is no
> > consistent maintainer to see. So if you can take it, that's very
> > appreciated.
>
> My mail was meant encouraging, maybe it was too subtile? I'll try again:
>
> Yes, please apply, that would be wonderful!

Sorry for missing your previous email.  I will do that.  Thanks.

Regards,
Leo
  

Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:44 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Leo,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:30:05PM +0000, Leo Li wrote:
>> > > > 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.
>> >
>> > I guess Greg won't pick up this series as he didn't get a copy of it :-)
>> >
>> > Browsing through the history of drivers/bus/fsl-mc there is no
>> > consistent maintainer to see. So if you can take it, that's very
>> > appreciated.
>>
>> My mail was meant encouraging, maybe it was too subtile? I'll try again:
>>
>> Yes, please apply, that would be wonderful!
>
> Sorry for missing your previous email.  I will do that.  Thanks.

Does MAINTAINERS need updating?

It says:

QORIQ DPAA2 FSL-MC BUS DRIVER
M:	Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@gmail.com>
M:	Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>
L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
S:	Maintained
...
F:	drivers/bus/fsl-mc/


cheers
  

Hello,

On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 04:57:00PM -0500, Li Yang wrote:
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:44 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:30:05PM +0000, Leo Li wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I guess Greg won't pick up this series as he didn't get a copy of it :-)
> > >
> > > Browsing through the history of drivers/bus/fsl-mc there is no
> > > consistent maintainer to see. So if you can take it, that's very
> > > appreciated.
> >
> > My mail was meant encouraging, maybe it was too subtile? I'll try again:
> >
> > Yes, please apply, that would be wonderful!
> 
> Sorry for missing your previous email.  I will do that.  Thanks.

Either you didn't apply this patch set yet, or your tree isn't in next.
Both variants would be great to be fixed.

I have another change pending for drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-bus.c, would
be great to see these base patches in next first.

Best regards
Uwe
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 8:51 AM
> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
> Cc: Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@gmail.com>; Gaurav Jain
> <gaurav.jain@nxp.com>; Roy Pledge <roy.pledge@nxp.com>; Diana
> Madalina Craciun (OSS) <diana.craciun@oss.nxp.com>; Eric Dumazet
> <edumazet@google.com>; Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>;
> kvm@vger.kernel.org; Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@nxp.com>; Jakub
> Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>; Laurentiu
> Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>; Richard Cochran
> <richardcochran@gmail.com>; Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>; Alex
> Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>; linux-arm-
> kernel@lists.infradead.org; Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Vinod Koul
> <vkoul@kernel.org>; linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org; kernel@pengutronix.de;
> Y.B. Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com>; dmaengine@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] bus: fsl-mc: Make remove function return void
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 04:57:00PM -0500, Li Yang wrote:
> > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:44 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:30:05PM +0000, Leo Li wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > I guess Greg won't pick up this series as he didn't get a copy of
> > > > it :-)
> > > >
> > > > Browsing through the history of drivers/bus/fsl-mc there is no
> > > > consistent maintainer to see. So if you can take it, that's very
> > > > appreciated.
> > >
> > > My mail was meant encouraging, maybe it was too subtile? I'll try again:
> > >
> > > Yes, please apply, that would be wonderful!
> >
> > Sorry for missing your previous email.  I will do that.  Thanks.
> 
> Either you didn't apply this patch set yet, or your tree isn't in next.
> Both variants would be great to be fixed.
> 
> I have another change pending for drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-bus.c, would be
> great to see these base patches in next first.

I have applied them to the next branch of my tree.  They will be part of the Linux-next soon.

Regards,
Leo