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

[Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>]

Hi Peter,

On 24.03.2016 13:05, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 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@axentia.se>
>>>
>>> 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@axentia.se>
>>
>> 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?
> 

Yep, thank you for clarification, please account this in v3.

I'll try to find some time to review the whole changeset carefully,
in fact I briefly reviewed it two months ago, but I didn't find
anything obviously wrong that time.

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir