Am 05.12.2017 um 09:18 schrieb Bartosz Golaszewski:
> 2017-12-04 20:51 GMT+01:00 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> Make use of recently introduced device-managed version of
>> i2c_new_dummy to simplify the code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 15 ++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>> index 625b00166..9e9fe69b4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>> @@ -621,9 +621,10 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>>
>> /* use dummy devices for multiple-address chips */
>> for (i = 1; i < num_addresses; i++) {
>> - at24->client[i].client = i2c_new_dummy(client->adapter,
>> - client->addr + i);
>> - if (!at24->client[i].client) {
>> + at24->client[i].client = devm_i2c_new_dummy(&client->dev,
>> + client->adapter,
>> + client->addr + i);
>> + if (IS_ERR(at24->client[i].client)) {
>> dev_err(&client->dev, "address 0x%02x unavailable\n",
>> client->addr + i);
>> err = -EADDRINUSE;
>> @@ -686,10 +687,6 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>> return 0;
>>
>> err_clients:
>> - for (i = 1; i < num_addresses; i++)
>> - if (at24->client[i].client)
>> - i2c_unregister_device(at24->client[i].client);
>> -
>> pm_runtime_disable(&client->dev);
>>
>> return err;
>> @@ -698,15 +695,11 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>> static int at24_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>> {
>> struct at24_data *at24;
>> - int i;
>>
>> at24 = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>>
>> nvmem_unregister(at24->nvmem);
>>
>> - for (i = 1; i < at24->num_addresses; i++)
>> - i2c_unregister_device(at24->client[i].client);
>> -
>> pm_runtime_disable(&client->dev);
>> pm_runtime_set_suspended(&client->dev);
>>
>> --
>> 2.15.1
>>
>>
>
> Hi Heiner,
>
> I don't have the patch introducing the devres routine in my inbox.
> Could you resend the two patches as a series? Note: please Cc the
> linux-kernel mailing list too. Also: maybe you could create a device
> managed version of i2c_new_secondary_device() if you're at it? Could
> use the same release callback.
>
OK, will resubmit both patches as a series.
Regarding i2c_new_secondary_device I checked and didn't find a single
user of this function. Therefore I'm afraid maintainers would be
reluctant to accept a device-managed version which would sit idle too.
Rgds, Heiner
> Thanks,
> Bartosz
>
