On Sun, 01 Jun 2025, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Even though we don't use it yet, we should mark the second I2C address > this device is listening to as used. Could we have a bit more information please? What happens if we don't do this? > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > This patch could not be applied 6 years ago because of a missing > dependency. It has arrived meanwhile ;) > > drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c > index c6235cd0dbdc..c74702cf8a77 100644 > --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c > @@ -454,6 +454,8 @@ static int da9063_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c) > } > } Maybe a comment for future readers wondering why we're obtaining this unused I2C address. It may prevent others from removing it as superfluous. > + devm_i2c_new_dummy_device(&i2c->dev, i2c->adapter, i2c->addr + 1); > + > return da9063_device_init(da9063, i2c->irq); > } > > -- > 2.47.2 > -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
