Hi Peter,
On 05.01.2016 17:57, Peter Rosin wrote:
> From: Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
>
> The initial core mux structure starts off small with only the parent
> adapter pointer, which all muxes have, and a priv pointer for mux
> driver private data.
>
> Add i2c_mux_alloc function to unify the creation of a mux.
>
> Where appropriate, pass around the mux core structure instead of the
> parent adapter or the driver private data.
>
> Remove the parent adapter pointer from the driver private data for all
> mux drivers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
is it still under review? If yes, please find one question from me below :)
[snip]
> @@ -196,21 +195,21 @@ static int i2c_arbitrator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> dev_err(dev, "Cannot parse i2c-parent\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> - arb->parent = of_get_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
> + muxc->parent = of_find_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
why do you prefer here to use "unlocked" version of API?
Foe example would it be safe/possible to unload an I2C bus device driver
module or unbind I2C device itself in runtime?
> of_node_put(parent_np);
> - if (!arb->parent) {
> + if (!muxc->parent) {
> dev_err(dev, "Cannot find parent bus\n");
> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> }
>
> /* Actually add the mux adapter */
> - arb->child = i2c_add_mux_adapter(arb->parent, dev, arb, 0, 0, 0,
> + arb->child = i2c_add_mux_adapter(muxc, dev, arb, 0, 0, 0,
> i2c_arbitrator_select,
> i2c_arbitrator_deselect);
> if (!arb->child) {
> dev_err(dev, "Failed to add adapter\n");
> ret = -ENODEV;
> - i2c_put_adapter(arb->parent);
> + i2c_put_adapter(muxc->parent);
> }
>
> return ret;
--
With best wishes,
Vladimir
Hi Vladimir,
On 2016-03-24 10:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 05.01.2016 17:57, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> From: Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
>>
>> The initial core mux structure starts off small with only the parent
>> adapter pointer, which all muxes have, and a priv pointer for mux
>> driver private data.
>>
>> Add i2c_mux_alloc function to unify the creation of a mux.
>>
>> Where appropriate, pass around the mux core structure instead of the
>> parent adapter or the driver private data.
>>
>> Remove the parent adapter pointer from the driver private data for all
>> mux drivers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
>
> is it still under review? If yes, please find one question from me below :)
Yes, the series is still under review/testing, with an update planned in a
week or so.
> [snip]
>
>> @@ -196,21 +195,21 @@ static int i2c_arbitrator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> dev_err(dev, "Cannot parse i2c-parent\n");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> - arb->parent = of_get_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
>> + muxc->parent = of_find_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
>
> why do you prefer here to use "unlocked" version of API?
>
> Foe example would it be safe/possible to unload an I2C bus device driver
> module or unbind I2C device itself in runtime?
I think you ask why I change from of_get_i2c_... to of_find_i2c_..., and that
change was not intentional. It was the result of a bad merge during an early
rebase.
Does that cover it?
Cheers,
Peter
Hi Peter,
On 24.03.2016 13:05, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> On 2016-03-24 10:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 05.01.2016 17:57, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> From: Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> The initial core mux structure starts off small with only the parent
>>> adapter pointer, which all muxes have, and a priv pointer for mux
>>> driver private data.
>>>
>>> Add i2c_mux_alloc function to unify the creation of a mux.
>>>
>>> Where appropriate, pass around the mux core structure instead of the
>>> parent adapter or the driver private data.
>>>
>>> Remove the parent adapter pointer from the driver private data for all
>>> mux drivers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
>>
>> is it still under review? If yes, please find one question from me below :)
>
> Yes, the series is still under review/testing, with an update planned in a
> week or so.
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> @@ -196,21 +195,21 @@ static int i2c_arbitrator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> dev_err(dev, "Cannot parse i2c-parent\n");
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>> - arb->parent = of_get_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
>>> + muxc->parent = of_find_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
>>
>> why do you prefer here to use "unlocked" version of API?
>>
>> Foe example would it be safe/possible to unload an I2C bus device driver
>> module or unbind I2C device itself in runtime?
>
> I think you ask why I change from of_get_i2c_... to of_find_i2c_..., and that
> change was not intentional. It was the result of a bad merge during an early
> rebase.
>
> Does that cover it?
>
Yep, thank you for clarification, please account this in v3.
I'll try to find some time to review the whole changeset carefully,
in fact I briefly reviewed it two months ago, but I didn't find
anything obviously wrong that time.
--
With best wishes,
Vladimir
Hi Vladimir,
On 2016-03-24 15:24, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 24.03.2016 13:05, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2016-03-24 10:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>> On 05.01.2016 17:57, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> @@ -196,21 +195,21 @@ static int i2c_arbitrator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> dev_err(dev, "Cannot parse i2c-parent\n");
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>>> - arb->parent = of_get_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
>>>> + muxc->parent = of_find_i2c_adapter_by_node(parent_np);
>>>
>>> why do you prefer here to use "unlocked" version of API?
>>>
>>> Foe example would it be safe/possible to unload an I2C bus device driver
>>> module or unbind I2C device itself in runtime?
>>
>> I think you ask why I change from of_get_i2c_... to of_find_i2c_..., and that
>> change was not intentional. It was the result of a bad merge during an early
>> rebase.
>>
>> Does that cover it?
>>
>
> Yep, thank you for clarification, please account this in v3.
Oh , v3 is old news, v4 was sent out some weeks ago, and there is a v5
on a github branch. This bad rebase was fixed in v4.
> I'll try to find some time to review the whole changeset carefully,
> in fact I briefly reviewed it two months ago, but I didn't find
> anything obviously wrong that time.
Please put that on hold until I have rebased ontop of v4.6-rc1 and
changed a couple of other things. I'd hate for you to waste your
time on outdated patches.
Cheers,
Peter
Hi Vladimir,
> > I'll try to find some time to review the whole changeset carefully,
> > in fact I briefly reviewed it two months ago, but I didn't find
> > anything obviously wrong that time.
>
> Please put that on hold until I have rebased ontop of v4.6-rc1 and
> changed a couple of other things. I'd hate for you to waste your
> time on outdated patches.
v6 is out now. Any help with reviewing/testing is much appreciated!
Thanks,
Wolfram