Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: mux: pinctrl: remove platform_data | From | Stephen Warren <> | Date | Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:05:09 -0600 |
| |
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>
| |