lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: mux: pinctrl: remove platform_data
From
Date
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>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-02 21:12    [W:0.121 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site