Hi Peter, 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. > >> [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? > > 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 > rebase. > > 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, 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
