> > It sounds tempting, yet I am concerned about regressions. From that > > point of view, it is safer to introduce i2c_lock_segment() and convert the > > users which would benefit from that. How many drivers would be affected? > > Right, there is also the aspect that changing a function like this > might surprise people. Maybe i2c_lock_adapter should be killed and > all callers changed to one of i2c_lock_segment and i2c_lock_root? Yes, I like this one. It makes the change very clear to people. > It's not that much churn... OK, convinced. Are you willing/able to take on this? We are close to rc1 which would be a very good timing because a) linux-next should be almost empty and b) we have nearly one cycle for linux-next and one cycle for the rc-phase to get as much testing as possible. But also, there is no actual need to rush... This means for the original SCCB patch, it is independent of our thoughts here. If SCCB gets in first, we will just convert it, too. Thanks Peter!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
