On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:47:51 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 03:08:36PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:27:07 +0300 > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 04:55:37PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote: > > ... > > > > > + return get_device(adapter->supplier ?: adapter->dev.parent); > > > > > > What will be the meaning when both are set? Why dev.parent is not the same > > > as supplier in this case? Looking at the commit message example, it seems > > > like you want to provide a physdev or sysdev (as term supplier seems more > > > devlink:ish), like it's done elsewhere. And in the same way _always_ initialise > > > it. In such a case, the ambiguity will be gone. > > > > When both are set (this is case for i2c muxes), the adapter->supplier the > > device that register the I2C adapter using i2c_add_adapter() or variant. > > In other word, the device that creates the I2C adapter. > > > > The adapter->dev.parent is most of the time the device that register the > > I2C adapter except for i2c muxes. For I2C muxes, this adapter->dev.parent > > is the adapter the i2c mux is connected to. > > > > Between physdev and sysdev, I really prefer physdev and, if renaming from > > supplier to physdev is still needed (and wanted), I will rename it. Let me > > know. > > The terms supplier/consumer are widely used in terms of power and devlink. > I think here should not be used the term supplier. physdev seems good. I will use that. > > > For initialization, I don't want to modify all the I2C controller drivers. > > What I can do is to initialize adapter->supplier using adapter->dev.parent > > during the i2c_register_adapter() call if it was not already initialize by > > the caller (i.e. the I2C controller driver). > > This can be done in the I²C core, but I'm not insisting on this part. > We can start from your function only and then decide later on how to > proceed (depending on how many users of that field appear and what > they want to do with it). > Right I think I can keep my function as it. Wolfram any opinion? Best regards, Hervé
