Re: [PATCH] w1: ds2482: Switch back to use struct i2c_driver's .probe()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/07/2023 10:52, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:06:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 13/06/2023 09:02, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> Hello Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:10:30PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/06/2023 09:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>>>> After commit b8a1a4cd5a98 ("i2c: Provide a temporary .probe_new()
>>>>> call-back type"), all drivers being converted to .probe_new() and then
>>>>> commit 03c835f498b5 ("i2c: Switch .probe() to not take an id parameter")
>>>>> convert back to (the new) .probe() to be able to eventually drop
>>>>> .probe_new() from struct i2c_driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/w1/masters/ds2482.c | 2 +-
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the patch.
>>>> It is too late in the cycle for me to pick it up. I will take it after
>>>> the merge window.
>>>
>>> This is one of only 19 patches that are still needed on top of what is
>>> currently in next before I can drop .probe_new() which I intended to
>>> tackle after the upcoming merge window. I expect that most of these 19
>>> patches will still be picked up and go into v6.5-rc1.
>>>
>>> Assuming there are only less than 10 patches remaining on top of
>>> v6.5-rc1, I intend to create a pull request for Wolfram with the
>>> remaining bits and a patch doing
>>
>> Sure, go ahead:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks, but this didn't happen because I missed a few introductions of
> new .probe_new. My plan was rescheduled to one merge window later. So if
> you want to take this for v6.6-rc1 that would be great.
> 

I don't have anything in w1 queue, so it would be easier if you take it
with the rest.

Best regards,
Krzysztof