> There is only one thing giving me some headache now. There is a danger
> of a regression maybe. If someone has multiple 'reg' entries in the DT
> but never used i2c_new_ancillary_device but i2c_new_dummy_device, then
> things will break now because i2c_new_dummy_device has not enough
> information to convert a "reserved" device to a "dummy" one. It will
> just see the address as busy. However, all binding documentations I
> found which use 'reg' as an array correctly use
> i2c_new_ancillary_device. On the other hand, my search strategy for
> finding such bindings and DTs do not feel perfect to me. Maybe there are
> also some more corner cases in this area, so this series is still RFC.

So, I used another search strategy: I checked every
i2c_new_dummy_device() caller in the kernel tree and made sure they
don't get the address to use from DT. I can confirm this is not the
case. That gives me enough trust to say the above issue is a non-issue.

Still open for comments, of course...