Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] i2c: mux-pinctrl: Rework to honor disabled child nodes

[Stephen Warren]

On 03/19/2015 10:02 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > -	/* Only register child devices if the adapter has a node pointer set */
> > > -	if (!adap->dev.of_node)
> > > +	/* Only register childs if adapter has a node pointer with enabled status */
> > > +	if (!adap->dev.of_node || !of_device_is_available(adap->dev.of_node))
> > >   		return;
> >
> > That feels a bit odd to me. For a regular non-mux I2C controller, that extra
> > case would never trigger if the controller node was disabled, since the
> > device core would never probe the controller device itself. So, we'd end up
> > with inconsistent paths through the I2C core for regular controllers and
> > muxes.
>
> I first thought the no-op for the non-mux case wouldn't hurt, but I
> agree about the consistent code path. I mentioned in my previous mail
> that i2c-mux might be a better place for this...
>
> > Perhaps better would be to have a mux-specific function to iterate over a
> > mux's child nodes and instantiate buses for those. That function would check
> > whether each bus node was disabled or not. That'd isolate the special case
> > into the place where it was relevant.
>
> ... so I wonder what you think about putting the
> of_device_is_available() check into i2c_add_mux_adapter() once the
> reg-property and chan_id have been matched?

I think that looks like a good place, yes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/