From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] i2c: of: reserve unknown and ancillary addresses Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 04:50:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20200328035036.GA1017@kunai> References: <20200318150059.21714-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm" Return-path: Received: from sauhun.de ([88.99.104.3]:46254 "EHLO pokefinder.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726225AbgC1Duj (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2020 23:50:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200318150059.21714-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org, Kieran Bingham , Niklas =?utf-8?Q?S=C3=B6derlund?= , Luca Ceresoli , Jacopo Mondi , Laurent Pinchart , Vladimir Zapolskiy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > There is only one thing giving me some headache now. There is a danger > of a regression maybe. If someone has multiple 'reg' entries in the DT > but never used i2c_new_ancillary_device but i2c_new_dummy_device, then > things will break now because i2c_new_dummy_device has not enough > information to convert a "reserved" device to a "dummy" one. It will > just see the address as busy. However, all binding documentations I > found which use 'reg' as an array correctly use > i2c_new_ancillary_device. On the other hand, my search strategy for > finding such bindings and DTs do not feel perfect to me. Maybe there are > also some more corner cases in this area, so this series is still RFC. So, I used another search strategy: I checked every i2c_new_dummy_device() caller in the kernel tree and made sure they don't get the address to use from DT. I can confirm this is not the case. That gives me enough trust to say the above issue is a non-issue. Still open for comments, of course... --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAl5+yYcACgkQFA3kzBSg KbZ9Ng//dnoXJcsOM/i5HdaeoT4RtiKz8dQZpX6hMND/LRLTrKeuk7QYfcmHGD5O mTZkGIQJh2TcLPIb3fJ2457+c2rJvDY9UBdFlaoRNgn/X5Dgvp7wW7Nilq1GVHZV w/+aPpL8rRM5Bty7W+kSWWUisECdGjVNEOPbD6O1klsb2Cq61rdvmGqCivHHjTFV 5Y/AeqZEIUWyA9Ga5LUg7EX/qOhCG+i5qVsYDj66qb19jITb6VY8/VLdZqLPPzIa xtGipLEwe+JmfdBSUWY7OX34nMz2xLe3wWMyMtVHLvG+tqk81YJD5E4nNfzZObSK Myi3F7X1hO3Vid0GBkB56xhwU3ZezIm+cGJA407hcCHO8GimbRxXax+3fR6GsIBQ ihTUG1ZkUBfuakm0JvW0tE75qS1cR0nlcIyLwFKPXo0nrPaLmQvY+VtlLwxU+lp1 +dtKxOHUEuQpUxCKBu3gRMI7f/OizK78nytTc5HDkWf/tJ2X3qhXWIdiFak7GF9L dR6DSB3WCXhAqNQiMjeCQfQDYMf04bqzknr+Y+Xqo2ltP2oGtNvr+8Vdn3+ajEob KYdfDZvTaQBJe/NrS6poQdRX/UqydVJh1dgKwsRNMEnG6+2y3w4SrVzZsyvahAx7 DPlpG5Sxfm5/jpf6NaC1GQ7/rppzXjm/m56e6aXxGQ4yDsVbiuM= =scYs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm--