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 :)
[snip]
> @@ -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?
> of_node_put(parent_np);
> - if (!arb->parent) {
> + if (!muxc->parent) {
> dev_err(dev, "Cannot find parent bus\n");
> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> }
>
> /* Actually add the mux adapter */
> - arb->child = i2c_add_mux_adapter(arb->parent, dev, arb, 0, 0, 0,
> + arb->child = i2c_add_mux_adapter(muxc, dev, arb, 0, 0, 0,
> i2c_arbitrator_select,
> i2c_arbitrator_deselect);
> if (!arb->child) {
> dev_err(dev, "Failed to add adapter\n");
> ret = -ENODEV;
> - i2c_put_adapter(arb->parent);
> + i2c_put_adapter(muxc->parent);
> }
>
> return ret;
--
With best wishes,
Vladimir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
