On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:18:10PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (20/08/26 13:23), Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:54:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:38:07PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > > On (20/08/26 19:24), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > > > > But then the question is why we have this code in the ->probe() at all? > > > > > > ->match() is run before probe by bus core, no? > > > > > > > > > > That's a good question. > > > > > > > > Everything seem to be working OK on my test board with this patch: > > > > > > I'm okay with it, but I want to hear Wolfram about this. > > > If it gets a green light to go, feel free to add > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sergey, > > > > Can you send a proper patch (with patch description) and me and Jean > > Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> in the To: field? > > > > The origins of this matching code are pretty old and Jean is more > > experienced there than I am. Nonetheless, I will check it, too, of > > course. > > Oh, sure, will do. Is that OK if I'll base my patch on linux-next? > I'm also going to test the patch on more devices here on my side. Today's one includes above mentioned patches, I think it's okay. The i2c/for-next is currently listed ab70935d37bb i2c: Remove 'default n' from busses/Kconfig on top of current, don't see how it may interfere with this. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
