Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] i2c: of: reserve unknown and ancillary addresses

Kieran Bingham
2020-04-15T08:35:20Z

On 15/04/2020 09:27, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> Status update on this series:
>
>> TODO: make sure there are no concurrency issues in patch 6 when handling
>> the struct i2c_client.
>
> This turns out to be annoying. How to make sure that we don't modify the
> i2c_client while the adapter it is sitting on just gets removed. AFAICS
> we need a new locking scheme just for that and I am not convinced this
> is the way forward.
>
> Also, there is still this small room for regressing when there are DTs
> having multiple addresses specified in the DT and the drivers use
> i2c_new_dummy_client on these addresses. I have verified that no in-tree
> users of i2c_new_dummy (and friends) do work on extra addresses but
> still I'd like to completely avoid this potential regression.
>
> One solution to both problems would be to unregister the reserved device
> when its address is requested. I am working on this prototype currently.
> However, I am not sure yet if one issue might make this approach messy:
> re-registering the reserved device when the probe of the requested
> address fails.

If we 'unregister' the existing device, could we then register a new
'well named' device more appropriate to the driver, so it doesn't
continue to show up as 'reserved' in the system, but rather a more
appropriate name to the driver that registered it?

> We will see...
>

Looking forward to it :-)

--
Kieran