Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] i2c-mux: add common core data for every mux instance

[Peter Rosin <peda-SamgB31n2u5IcsJQ0EH25Q@public.gmane.org>]

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 <peda-koto5C5qi+TLoDKTGw+V6w@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> 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 <peda-koto5C5qi+TLoDKTGw+V6w@public.gmane.org>
> 
> 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