From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Rosin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-ltc4306: LTC4306 and LTC4305 I2C multiplexer/switch Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:20:53 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1490782541-7832-1-git-send-email-michael.hennerich@analog.com> <0d4c068f-d909-64be-421d-4500da7ebd4c@axentia.se> <3c61461e-493c-4562-90c9-f30766591de2@axentia.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: michael.hennerich@analog.com, wsa@the-dreams.de, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 2017-04-03 15:36, Michael Hennerich wrote: > On 03.04.2017 14:03, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2017-03-31 17:29, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> Sorry for my incremental reviewing... >>> >> >> Another incremental... >> >>> On 2017-03-29 12:15, michael.hennerich@analog.com wrote: >>>> + >>>> + /* Now create an adapter for each channel */ >>>> + for (num = 0; num < data->chip->nchans; num++) { >>>> + ret = i2c_mux_add_adapter(muxc, 0, num, 0); >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + dev_err(&client->dev, >>>> + "failed to register multiplexed adapter %d\n", >>>> + num); >> >> Just a heads up, I submitted a series to remove a bunch of dev_err calls >> when i2c_mux_add_adapter fails. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/3/115 >> >> You can remove this one as well. >> >> And please use a subject of the form: >> i2c: mux: ltc4306: > ok - no problem. You managed to drop the spaces after the new colons in the subject. And maybe there is a problem, because I don't see any reaction to any of the review comments I made in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/31/525 Was that on purpose? Sure, the gpio "jury" is still out on the bigger question so maybe you're waiting for that, but there were a few nitpicks as well. Anyway, sorry again for failing to compile all comments up front. > I sent out a new patch. Per Rob's request, I split out the dt-bindings > into a separate patch. Thanks. I think(?) it is customary to have the bindings first, and then implement that "specification" in followup patches. No big deal though... Cheers, peda