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 <p...@axentia.se> >> >> 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 <p...@axentia.se> > > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
