Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-ltc4306: LTC4306 and LTC4305 I2C multiplexer/switch | From | Peter Rosin <> | Date | Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:20:53 +0200 |
| |
On 2017-04-03 15:36, Michael Hennerich wrote: > On 03.04.2017 14:03, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2017-03-31 17:29, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> Sorry for my incremental reviewing... >>> >> >> Another incremental... >> >>> On 2017-03-29 12:15, michael.hennerich@analog.com wrote: >>>> + >>>> + /* Now create an adapter for each channel */ >>>> + for (num = 0; num < data->chip->nchans; num++) { >>>> + ret = i2c_mux_add_adapter(muxc, 0, num, 0); >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + dev_err(&client->dev, >>>> + "failed to register multiplexed adapter %d\n", >>>> + num); >> >> Just a heads up, I submitted a series to remove a bunch of dev_err calls >> when i2c_mux_add_adapter fails. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/3/115 >> >> You can remove this one as well. >> >> And please use a subject of the form: >> i2c: mux: ltc4306: <message> > ok - no problem.
You managed to drop the spaces after the new colons in the subject.
And maybe there is a problem, because I don't see any reaction to any of the review comments I made in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/31/525
Was that on purpose? Sure, the gpio "jury" is still out on the bigger question so maybe you're waiting for that, but there were a few nitpicks as well. Anyway, sorry again for failing to compile all comments up front.
> I sent out a new patch. Per Rob's request, I split out the dt-bindings > into a separate patch.
Thanks. I think(?) it is customary to have the bindings first, and then implement that "specification" in followup patches. No big deal though...
Cheers, peda
| |