On 08/02/2017 03:25 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2017-08-02 21:06, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/02/2017 01:27 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
The information is available elsewhere.
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pinctrl.c b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pinctrl.c
static int i2c_mux_pinctrl_deselect(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, u32 chan)
{
+ return i2c_mux_pinctrl_select(muxc, muxc->num_adapters);
}
@@ -166,7 +162,7 @@ static int i2c_mux_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
/* Do not add any adapter for the idle state (if it's there at all). */
- for (i = 0; i < num_names - !!mux->state_idle; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < num_names - !!muxc->deselect; i++) {
I think that "num_names - !!muxc->deselect" could just be
muxc->num_adapters?
Not really, it's the i2c_mux_add_adapter call in the loop that bumps
muxc->num_adapters, so the loop would not be entered. Not desirable :-)
Ok, that makes sense.
(and muxc->max_adapters == num_names)
Well, unless muxc->deselect is true...
