Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] i2c mux cleanup and locking update

[Crt Mori]

Hi Wolfram and Peter,
I will give my opinion about the path chosen although it should be
taken lightly.

I can see that hardware guys missed the software guys again on the
development path, but since this happens more often than not, I would
say it seems OK to have support for this as long as it does not make
more complex (longer) standard i2c transfers. I would support to have
additional mutex before mux as that will make less chance that someone
forgets to lock mutex before mux and proposed solution seems valid.

Regards,
Crt

On 5 January 2016 at 19:48, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter,
>
>> PS. needs a bunch of testing, I do not have access to all the involved hw
>
> First of all, thanks for diving into this topic and the huge effort you
> apparently have put into it.
>
> It is obviously a quite intrusive series, so it needs careful review.
> TBH, I can't really tell when I have the bandwidth to do that, so I hope
> other people will step up. And yes, it needs serious testing.
>
> To all: Although I appreciate any review support, I'd think the first
> thing to be done should be a very high level review - is this series
> worth the huge update? Is the path chosen proper? Stuff like this. I'd
> appreciate Acks or Revs for that. Stuff like fixing checkpatch warnings
> and other minor stuff should come later.
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Wolfram
>
--
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/