On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 01:12:13AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:05:55PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:45:41AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > definitely at least add a boot argument or something to suppress them, > > > let me have a think if we want to do that by default. > > > It is a nuisance, so I might just disable it in our tree if we don't > > find some other solution. > > We'll do something, just a question of what and what the default is. > Ok. Note that a boot parameter would not work well for our use case, so it would be great if we can find something else.
> > Did you notice the problem with debugfs I had mentioned earlier ? > > With all those regulators, not all of them being used, I end up with > > many having the same name. This causes issues with debugfs, which is > > trying to create the same file several times. > > > Any idea how we could solve this ? The constraints message is annoying, > > but this one is a real issue. > > Shove a dev_name() on the front if we get a collision? I have to say > I've never cared, the debugfs isn't that important so it doesn't matter > too much if it fails. Sure, but, again, I am getting lots and lots of those error messages. I probably would not care either (and probably not even have noticed) if not for those messages. Want me to submit a patch with the dev_name solution ? Thanks, Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
