From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:19:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/4] i2c: mux-pinctrl: Rework to honor disabled child nodes In-Reply-To: <550B3725.10209@gmail.com> References: <1425039885-5137-2-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <1425903665-19343-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20150318123012.GA3580@katana> <55097C46.9010605@gmail.com> <20150318140037.GE3580@katana> <550A05E5.3050100@gmail.com> <20150319100944.GA914@katana> <550AEF9D.6090307@wwwdotorg.org> <20150319160208.GF7657@katana> <550B3725.10209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150320101925.GC2071@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > Ok, I see what you mean. I had a look at the place in question and > wonder what to return from i2c_add_mux_adapter() in the disabled > case so that i2c-mux-pinctrl is still happy with the returned value. Ouch, you are right. The crux of interfaces returning NULL instead of an ERR_PTR :( I'll have a look, I maybe started to fix this somewhen. > I guess what you want to have is that i2c_add_adapter() is not called > for the disabled case, right? I think that makes sense. > Is the i2c_adapter struct prepared in i2c_mux_add_adapter() still valid > if i2c_add_adapter() is not called? I will have a closer look to the issue this weekend. > Sorry, I am not too deep into i2c subsystem, I just reworked i2c-mux- > pinctrl to make it work on Dove. If you are fine with giving me some > guidance how you prefer to have it done, I can try to free some spare > time. Cool, thanks. Learning by doing is a good way to get such knowledge :) > Unfortunately there is already little of it, so please don't > expect a quick tested patch. I understand. Thanks, Wolfram -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: