From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] i2c: Don't wait for device release in i2c_del_adapter Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:19:44 -0800 Message-ID: <20150114161944.GA18578@roeck-us.net> References: <1421082050-10213-1-git-send-email-pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com> <20150113152957.GL7660@katana> <20150114144938.4e3c3f52@endymion.delvare> <54B679DC.40303@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Pantelis Antoniou Cc: Jean Delvare , Wolfram Sang , Matt Porter , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Grant Likely , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:18:56PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi Guenter, >=20 > > On Jan 14, 2015, at 16:14 , Guenter Roeck wrot= e: > >=20 > > On 01/14/2015 05:54 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > >=20 > >>> That being said, nobody complained about this in 11 years, so I w= ould > >>> be surprised if it was plain wrong. I'd rather question the test = code. > >>> Where is it? > >>>=20 > >>=20 > >> No-one has apparently tested removing an i2c mux device on a runni= ng system > >> before. > >>=20 > > Hi Pantelis, > >=20 > > We didn't see the problem with 3.14. That was with an earlier versi= on of the > > overlay patchset, though. > >=20 >=20 > There have been changes to the overlay patchset since then true, but = I don=E2=80=99t see > how that would trigger a deadlock in i2c. The completion wait just se= ems bogus to me. >=20 Maybe the problem is triggered by a change in the infrastructure. Guenter