[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56F3CA0E.60906@lysator.liu.se>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:05:50 +0100
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ator.liu.se>
To: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com>
CC: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Adriana Reus <adriana.reus@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
Olli Salonen <olli.salonen@....fi>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] i2c-mux: add common core data for every mux instance
Hi Vladimir,
On 2016-03-24 10:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 05.01.2016 17:57, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
>>
>> The initial core mux structure starts off small with only the parent
>> adapter pointer, which all muxes have, and a priv pointer for mux
>> driver private data.
>>
>> Add i2c_mux_alloc function to unify the creation of a mux.
>>
>> Where appropriate, pass around the mux core structure instead of the
>> parent adapter or the driver private data.
>>
>> Remove the parent adapter pointer from the driver private data for all
>> mux drivers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
>
> is it still under review? If yes, please find one question from me below :)
Yes, the series is still under review/testing, with an update planned in a
week or so.
> [snip]
>
>> @@ -196,21 +195,21 @@ static int i2c_arbitrator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> dev_err(dev, "Cannot parse i2c-parent\n");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> - arb->parent = of_get_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
>> + muxc->parent = of_find_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
>
> why do you prefer here to use "unlocked" version of API?
>
> Foe example would it be safe/possible to unload an I2C bus device driver
> module or unbind I2C device itself in runtime?
I think you ask why I change from of_get_i2c_... to of_find_i2c_..., and that
change was not intentional. It was the result of a bad merge during an early
rebase.
Does that cover it?
Cheers,
Peter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists