[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190415120441.ka65mytvxsuzul4v@ninjato>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:04:41 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Stefan Lengfeld <contact@...fanchrist.eu>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] i2c: mux: populate the new *_atomic callbacks
> I guess the question is if it is allowed to have .master_xfer_atomic
> but not .master_xfer (and similarly for .smbus_xfer{,_atomic})? Maybe
> that decision should be made explicit? And perhaps enforced?
xfer_atomic callbacks are optional. One xfer callback is mandatory. I
did a check for falling back to master_xfer_atomic if there is no
suitable smbus_xfer_atomic. I will think about the vice-versa case you
mentioned. Yet, this is indeed a super corner case, so I prefer to fix
this incrementally.
> I don't care deeply about the above though, so feel free to do
> something about it, or
>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Thanks for the review!
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists