Re: [PATCH] i2c: Re-instate body of i2c_parent_is_i2c_adapter()

2014-01-16 Thread Wolfram Sang
> I do see this in for-current, but it looks like that branch isn't part > of linux-next. Should it be, or perhaps for-current should be merged > into for-next? It is upstream already. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [PATCH] i2c: Re-instate body of i2c_parent_is_i2c_adapter()

2014-01-16 Thread Stephen Warren
On 01/14/2014 09:12 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:29:04PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >> From: Stephen Warren >> >> The body of i2c_parent_is_i2c_adapter() is currently guarded by >> CONFIG_I2C_MUX instead. > > This paragraph sounds strange to me. I'll update it a little.

Re: [PATCH] i2c: Re-instate body of i2c_parent_is_i2c_adapter()

2014-01-14 Thread Wolfram Sang
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:29:04PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > From: Stephen Warren > > The body of i2c_parent_is_i2c_adapter() is currently guarded by > CONFIG_I2C_MUX instead. This paragraph sounds strange to me. I'll update it a little. After that I'll go looking for a brown paper bag...

[PATCH] i2c: Re-instate body of i2c_parent_is_i2c_adapter()

2014-01-13 Thread Stephen Warren
From: Stephen Warren The body of i2c_parent_is_i2c_adapter() is currently guarded by CONFIG_I2C_MUX instead. Among potentially other problems, this resulted in i2c_lock_adapter() only locking I2C mux child adapters, and not the parent adapter. In turn, this could allow inter-mingling of mux chil