Hi Peter, > nitpick: Patch subjects for the second patch is wrong. > > "reparented" is a bit dual when dealing with i2c adapter trees. > i2c_mux_add_owned_adapter is perhaps clearer? Agreed, I will update that. > > > Aside from that, I'm not using modules much and need some enlightenment > as to why the i2c_del_mux_adapter() call in i2c_mux_gpio_remove() is not > sufficient and what exactly the problem is? Why would someone/something > unload the i2c-mux module prematurely? It is not a normal operation to remove the i2c gpio mux, however systemd could unload modules out of order if users are restarting services incorrectly and cause unintended side-effects. This change would stop an i2c-mux that maybe controlling a voltage regulator from being unloaded and disabling power to parts of the system unexpectedly. > > > Would it be an alternative to make i2c-mux a proper kernel object of > some kind? I mean, why do not all other mux users also need to modify > the owner? Why is i2c-mux-gpio special? > i2c-mux-gpio is not special, the code inserted by [PATCH v1 1/2] i2c-mux: add i2c_mux_add_reparented_adapter api could be used by other muxes if required. Best regards Jim -- 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
