On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:00:56PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > If there are multiple muxes on one bus, then specifying the channel only > > is not sufficient for a distinguishable name. We need the actual device, > > too. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Martin Belanger <martin.belanger@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@xxxxxx> > > Cc: Jeroen De Wachter <jeroen.de.wachter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > This is probably the least "ABI" breaking solution? RFC for now... > > > > drivers/i2c/i2c-mux.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-mux.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-mux.c > > index 5b482ea32faf..26aa84902ada 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-mux.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-mux.c > > @@ -134,7 +134,8 @@ struct i2c_adapter *i2c_add_mux_adapter(struct i2c_adapter *parent, > > > > /* Now fill out new adapter structure */ > > snprintf(priv->adap.name, sizeof(priv->adap.name), > > - "i2c-%d-mux (chan_id %d)", i2c_adapter_id(parent), chan_id); > > + "i2c-%d-mux (chan_id %d) (mux_device %s)", > > + i2c_adapter_id(parent), chan_id, dev_name(mux_dev)); > > This yields pretty long names, longer than the maximum supported length, > if the mux is not an i2c adapter (eg i2c-mux-pinctrl). > > i2c-17-mux (chan_id 5) (mux_device i2c-mux-pinctrl) > > has 52 characters, and the maximum name length is 48. > Maybe just use "mux" instead of "mux_adapter" ? Argh, right. With that length limit, it doesn't make sense to use %s, at all. For DT the name comes from the node name and that could be even longer, so shortening to "mux" wouldn't help much. > The result still fails for me because the application code doesn't expect > to see "(mux...)", but I guess there will always be some problem :-(. Yes, because it is ABI breakage. Honestly, with that size limit as another obstacle, I think we should leave the 'name' file as it is and use proper topology. > I still need to figure out what causes the failure with the other patch. Yes, please. Thanks for doing that! Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
