> > +static void pca954x_reset_mux(struct pca954x *data)
> > +{
> > +	dev_warn(&data->client->dev, "resetting the device\n");
> 
> To me, this is not the proper place for such a report. Can't the reset
> framework be instrumented in some way?

I removed it.

> 
> > +	pca954x_reset_assert(data);
> > +	udelay(1);
> > +	pca954x_reset_deassert(data);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int pca954x_select_chan(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, u32 chan)
> >  {
> >  	struct pca954x *data = i2c_mux_priv(muxc);
> > @@ -328,6 +348,8 @@ static int pca954x_select_chan(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, u32 chan)
> >  		ret = pca954x_reg_write(muxc->parent, client, regval);
> >  		data->last_chan = ret < 0 ? 0 : regval;
> >  	}
> > +	if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT && (data->reset_cont))
> 
> Braces around 'data...' not needed. Use '--strict' with checkpatch to
> get notified.

Fixed this, too.

> > -		return pca954x_reg_write(muxc->parent, client,
> > +		ret = pca954x_reg_write(muxc->parent, client,
> >  					 data->last_chan);
> 
> Indentation of the above line needs to be adapted.

Ditto.

Applied to for-next, thanks!