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
