Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] i2c: of: mark a whole array of regs as
 reserved
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran@ksquared.org.uk>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Niklas_S=c3=b6derlund?= <niklas.soderlund@ragnatech.se>,
        Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200318150059.21714-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
 <20200318150059.21714-6-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
From:   Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
Message-ID: <c4e41b0a-4b9a-0db9-94dc-bbbc2f013133@lucaceresoli.net>
Date:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 11:55:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200318150059.21714-6-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 18/03/20 16:00, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Back then, 'reg' properties in I2C DT bindings only contained one
> address and this address was assigned a device and, thus, blocked.
> Meanwhile, chips using multiple addresses are common and the 'reg'
> property can be an array described by 'reg-names'. This code enhances
> I2C DT parsing, so it will reserve all addresses described in an array.
> They will be bound to the 'dummy' driver as 'reserved' iff the first
> address can be assigned successfully. If that is not the case, the array
> is not further considered. If one later address of the array can not be
> assigned, it will be reported but we don't bail out. The driver has to
> decide if that address is critical or not.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c
> index f2d09ea0d336..67eb2cd305cf 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c
> @@ -16,25 +16,18 @@
>  #include <linux/i2c.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>  #include <linux/of_device.h>
>  #include <linux/sysfs.h>
>  
>  #include "i2c-core.h"
>  
> -int of_i2c_get_board_info(struct device_node *node, struct i2c_board_info *info)
> +static void of_i2c_decode_board_info(struct device_node *node, u32 addr,
> +				     bool first_addr, struct i2c_board_info *info)

While I confirm the patch looks generally OK, let me add the name of
this function is not quite self-explaining. The difference between "get"
and "decode" has nothing to do with the different actions these
functions do, i.e. the new function gets (or: decodes) info about  a
single address that is passed, the old "get" function gets the info for
the first address.

I'd suggest the new function be named of_i2c_get_board_info_one_addr or
similar. Not super nice, a bit long, but self-explanatory.

-- 
Luca