Hi Jean, > Sorry for being a little quiet, I took a long, well-deserved week-end > off and didn't have the time to reply before I left. Now I'm back... No worries, no rush :) > Yes, my intent was to add a call to i2c_set_clientdata(x, NULL) in > i2c_device_remove(). We would do this immediately, so that drivers can > start removing the call on their end quickly (and new ones are not > added.) > > Can you please send the patch for i2c-core and Documentation/i2c? It's > not difficult but I don't want to steal your credits. Yes, can do this in a few hours (already midnight here), this is for 2.6.34 then. > It would also be fair to warn all the developers you already contacted > with your first attempt and let them know that it is being cancelled, > and let them know the new plan. Hopefully this will avoid useless > commits. Can do this, too. About the removal of the i2c_set_clientdata-calls: - shall I prepare a series for that, too? - also for 2.6.34? - also patches per subsystem? - shall this better go via the i2c-tree? > > I could check if there is any probe-function calling get_clientdata and making > > use of that? That is probably the most obvious thing which would need to rely > > on the current behaviour or did I miss something? > > You are right, but I really hope you won't catch anybody doing this. > This would go against the device driver model. I'd also be surprised if that would find something. Regards, Wolfram PS: I will also have a look at the pca-issue after that. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
