Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] i2c-mux: add common core data for every mux instance
From: Vladimir Zapolskiy
Date: Thu Mar 24 2016 - 10:25:09 EST
On 24.03.2016 13:05, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> 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.
>>> @@ -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
> Does that cover it?
Yep, thank you for clarification, please account this in v3.
I'll try to find some time to review the whole changeset carefully,
in fact I briefly reviewed it two months ago, but I didn't find
anything obviously wrong that time.
With best wishes,