On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:29:27PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2017-12-01 16:35 GMT+01:00 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi Sven, > > > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:20:41AM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote: > >> Thank you, it fixes the issue on the multi-address eeprom that I have access to. > >> > >> Tested-by: Sven Van Asbroeck on a 24AA16/24LC16B <svendev@xxxxxxxx> > >> > >> One very minor remark: > >> > >> + struct device *dev = &at24->client[0]->dev; > >> > >> It is sufficiently clear to others (and us a few months down the line) > >> why we are > >> using only client[0] for power management? Could it benefit from a separate > >> function with comments? > >> > >> struct device *dev = get_pm_device(at24); > >> > >> static struct device *get_pm_device(struct at24_data *at24) > >> { > >> /* explain why we use client[0] and not any of the dummies */ > >> return &at24->client[0]->dev; > >> } > > > > There are no comments in assigning at24->client[0] either (or a helper > > function). I think it should be rather evident when looking at the code > > when you think about it. I certainly don't object adding a comment if you > > insist or someone else thinks it's a good idea. > > > > Thanks for testing! > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > > > Sakari Ailus > > sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Pushed to at24/fixes, thanks! > > @Saraki: there were some conflicts with the previous fixes queued for > 4.15. Could you take a look if my rebase didn't break anything? You > can find my tree at > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brgl/linux.git Seems fine to me. Thanks!! -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx