Re: [PATCH 571/606] serial: sc16is7xx: Convert to i2c's .probe_new()

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Greg,

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:45:52PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:10:25AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:09:12AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 07:36:52AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > > BTW is this a performance issue? I.e. does it slow down the boot?
> > > 
> > > I don't know the start motivation for Lee (who triggered the conversion
> > > in b8a1a4cd5a98 ("i2c: Provide a temporary .probe_new() call-back
> > > type")).
> > > Looking at the git history, he created 1e98dcd77970 ("mfd: 88pm860x:
> > > Move over to new I2C device .probe() call") converting a driver that
> > > doesn't benefit immensely. The lookup is more expensive for drivers with
> > > big .id_table, the converted driver has only one entry.
> > > 
> > > I think in the end is a mixture between:
> > > 
> > >  - A big part of the drivers doesn't benefit from the lookup.
> > >  - For most other busses the probe function only gets a device parameter
> > >    and no id (spi, platform, i3c). There are counter examples though:
> > >    amba, usb. Didn't check further.
> > 
> > The discussion somehow ended here without a real result.
> > 
> > As of today's next master there are only 9 drivers left using .probe().
> > So I'd like to stop this discussion and ask to apply the conversion for
> > the sc16is7xx driver to be able to complete the conversion.
> > 
> > My plan is to drop the .probe callback as it is today after the next
> > merge window. So I ask the serial maintainers to either take the patch
> > under discussion for the next merge window or accept that the conversion
> > is done together with the patch that drops .probe() that probably will
> > go in via the i2c tree.
> 
> I don't see the patch anymore,

If you want to take a look:

	b4 am 20221118224540.619276-572-uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

or

	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221118224540.619276-572-uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> so I have no objection for it going through the i2c tree.

Can I interpret that as an Ack? :-)

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature