Hi Vladimir, On 2016-03-24 15:24, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > On 24.03.2016 13:05, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2016-03-24 10:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>> On 05.01.2016 17:57, Peter Rosin wrote: >>>> @@ -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. Oh , v3 is old news, v4 was sent out some weeks ago, and there is a v5 on a github branch. This bad rebase was fixed in v4. > 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. Please put that on hold until I have rebased ontop of v4.6-rc1 and changed a couple of other things. I'd hate for you to waste your time on outdated patches. Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
