Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: mux: pinctrl: remove platform_data

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 08/02/2017 01:27 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> No platform (at least no upstreamed platform) has ever used this
> platform_data. Just drop it and simplify the code.

> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pinctrl.c b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pinctrl.c

>   static int i2c_mux_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)

(eliding some - lines for brevity in the following):

> +	for (i = 0; i < num_names; i++) {
> +		ret = of_property_read_string_index(np, "pinctrl-names", i,
> +						    &name);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "Cannot parse pinctrl-names: %d\n", ret);
> +			goto err_put_parent;
> +		}
> +
> +		mux->states[i] = pinctrl_lookup_state(mux->pinctrl, name);
>   		if (IS_ERR(mux->states[i])) {
>   			ret = PTR_ERR(mux->states[i]);
> +			dev_err(dev, "Cannot look up pinctrl state %s: %d\n",
> +				name, ret);
> +			goto err_put_parent;

This error path doesn't undo pinctrl_lookup_state. Is that OK? I think 
so, but wanted to check.

> +	muxc = i2c_mux_alloc(parent, dev, num_names,
> +			     sizeof(*mux) + num_names * sizeof(*mux->states),
> +			     0, i2c_mux_pinctrl_select, NULL);
...
> +	/* Do not add any adapter for the idle state (if it's there at all). */
> +	for (i = 0; i < num_names - !!mux->state_idle; i++) {
> +		ret = i2c_mux_add_adapter(muxc, 0, i, 0);

Is it OK to potentially add one fewer adapter here than the child bus 
count passed to i2c_mux_alloc() earlier? The old code specifically 
excluded the idle state (if present) from the child bus count passed to 
i2c_mux_alloc(), which was aided by the fact that it parsed the DT 
before calling i2c_mux_alloc().

If those two things are OK, then:
Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>