> There is only one thing giving me some headache now. There is a danger > of a regression maybe. If someone has multiple 'reg' entries in the DT > but never used i2c_new_ancillary_device but i2c_new_dummy_device, then > things will break now because i2c_new_dummy_device has not enough > information to convert a "reserved" device to a "dummy" one. It will > just see the address as busy. However, all binding documentations I > found which use 'reg' as an array correctly use > i2c_new_ancillary_device. On the other hand, my search strategy for > finding such bindings and DTs do not feel perfect to me. Maybe there are > also some more corner cases in this area, so this series is still RFC. So, I used another search strategy: I checked every i2c_new_dummy_device() caller in the kernel tree and made sure they don't get the address to use from DT. I can confirm this is not the case. That gives me enough trust to say the above issue is a non-issue. Still open for comments, of course...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
