On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:18:10PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (20/08/26 13:23), Wolfram Sang wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:54:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:38:07PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
quoted
On (20/08/26 19:24), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
quoted
quoted
But then the question is why we have this code in the ->probe() at all?
->match() is run before probe by bus core, no?
That's a good question.
Everything seem to be working OK on my test board with this patch:
I'm okay with it, but I want to hear Wolfram about this.
If it gets a green light to go, feel free to add
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Sergey,
Can you send a proper patch (with patch description) and me and Jean
Delvare [off-list ref] in the To: field?
The origins of this matching code are pretty old and Jean is more
experienced there than I am. Nonetheless, I will check it, too, of
course.
Oh, sure, will do. Is that OK if I'll base my patch on linux-next?
I'm also going to test the patch on more devices here on my side.
Today's one includes above mentioned patches, I think it's okay.
The i2c/for-next is currently listed
ab70935d37bb i2c: Remove 'default n' from busses/Kconfig
on top of current, don't see how it may interfere with this.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko