On 2017-08-02 21:06, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/02/2017 01:27 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> The information is available elsewhere.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pinctrl.c
>> b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pinctrl.c
>
>> static int i2c_mux_pinctrl_deselect(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, u32 chan)
>> {
>> + return i2c_mux_pinctrl_select(muxc, muxc->num_adapters);
>> }
>
>> @@ -166,7 +162,7 @@ static int i2c_mux_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>
>> /* 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++) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < num_names - !!muxc->deselect; i++) {
>
> I think that "num_names - !!muxc->deselect" could just be
> muxc->num_adapters?
Not really, it's the i2c_mux_add_adapter call in the loop that bumps
muxc->num_adapters, so the loop would not be entered. Not desirable :-)
(and muxc->max_adapters == num_names)
> Otherwise,
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com>
Thanks!
Cheers,
Peter
