On Wednesday 20 June 2018 10:48 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > The i2c_lock_adapter name is ambiguous since it is unclear if it > refers to the root adapter or the adapter you name in the argument. > The natural interpretation is the adapter you name in the argument, > but there are historical reasons for that not being the case; it > in fact locks the root adapter. Just remove the function and force > users to spell out the I2C_LOCK_ROOT_ADAPTER name to indicate what > is really going on. Also remove i2c_unlock_adapter, of course. > > This patch was generated with > > git grep -l 'i2c_\(un\)\?lock_adapter' \ > | xargs sed -i 's/i2c_\(un\)\?lock_adapter(\([^)]*\))/'\ > 'i2c_\1lock_bus(\2, I2C_LOCK_ROOT_ADAPTER)/g' > > followed by white-space touch-up. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-brcmstb.c | 8 ++++---- > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c | 4 ++-- On DM644x and DA850 EVMs applying this series does not seem to break I2C functionality. So: Tested-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@xxxxxx> Thanks, Sekhar
