Huuuuu, I'm just see this:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:56:18 +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> -static int isp1301_probe(struct i2c_adapter *bus, int address, int kind)
> +static int __init isp1301_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> {
> int status;
> struct isp1301 *isp;
> - struct i2c_client *i2c;
>
> if (the_transceiver)
> return 0;
> @@ -1492,45 +1470,29 @@ static int isp1301_probe(struct i2c_adapter *bus, int
> address, int kind)
> init_timer(&isp->timer);
> isp->timer.function = isp1301_timer;
> isp->timer.data = (unsigned long) isp;
> -
> - isp->irq = -1;
> - isp->c.addr = address;
> - i2c_set_clientdata(&isp->c, isp);
> - isp->c.adapter = bus;
> - isp->c.driver = &isp1301_driver;
> - strlcpy(isp->c.name, DRIVER_NAME, I2C_NAME_SIZE);
> - isp->client = i2c = &isp->c;
> + isp->client = client;
>
> /* if this is a true probe, verify the chip ... */
> - if (kind < 0) {
> - status = isp1301_get_u16(isp, ISP1301_VENDOR_ID);
> - if (status != I2C_VENDOR_ID_PHILIPS) {
> - dev_dbg(&bus->dev, "addr %d not philips id: %d\n",
> - address, status);
> - goto fail1;
> - }
> - status = isp1301_get_u16(isp, ISP1301_PRODUCT_ID);
> - if (status != I2C_PRODUCT_ID_PHILIPS_1301) {
> - dev_dbg(&bus->dev, "%d not isp1301, %d\n",
> - address, status);
> - goto fail1;
> - }
> + status = isp1301_get_u16(isp, ISP1301_VENDOR_ID);
> + if (status != I2C_VENDOR_ID_PHILIPS) {
> + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "not philips id: %d\n", status);
> + goto fail1;
> + }
> + status = isp1301_get_u16(isp, ISP1301_PRODUCT_ID);
> + if (status != I2C_PRODUCT_ID_PHILIPS_1301) {
> + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "not isp1301, %d\n", status);
> + goto fail1;
> }
>
> - status = i2c_attach_client(i2c);
> - if (status < 0) {
> - dev_dbg(&bus->dev, "can't attach %s to device %d, err %d\n",
> - DRIVER_NAME, address, status);
> fail1:
> kfree(isp);
> return 0;
> - }
This is an unconditional failure, isn't it? So if I may ask: how did
you test this patch to not notice this?
> - isp->i2c_release = i2c->dev.release;
> - i2c->dev.release = isp1301_release;
> +
> + isp->i2c_release = client->dev.release = isp1301_release;
And this is a functional change which I really doubt was made on
purpose. It will make isp1301_release loop forever.
Don't know about you, but I am seriously tired by this patch. We're
working on it for more than 2 months, it must have seen half a dozen
revisions by now, and it's still broken enough for me to be sure that
it wasn't even tested.
The obvious reason is that this patch does several things at once. It's
not just converting the driver to a new-style i2c driver, it is also
moving the board-specific code out of the driver (or plain killing it
without explanations), and on top of this you add unrelated code
cleanups (or breakage). Patches are supposed to be split into
functional changes that are easy to review and test, exactly to avoid
this situation.
So I'll just drop this patch for now. I can't afford pushing broken
stuff into -mm. Let me know when you have something better and well
tested.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
