On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:54:40PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:25:31PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 01:12:13AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > 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. > > Could you explain why please? > Some of the system are loaded from u-boot. We can technically change the environment, but that would not be persistent. Product requirement is that the default (hard-coded) environment has to be the one that is used. And changing u-boot in those systems is more difficult than getting an audience with the Pope - believe me, we went through that. Unless there is a fatal problem, it simply won't be approved.
On x86 systems, which are booted through grub, we have a similar problem. The boot menu is secured and for all practical purposes untouchable. All that makes it much simpler to carry a one-line patch to remove the output from the log. I may try to do without it and keep the message, but I am quite sure that someone will complain and we'll have to do it. > > > 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 ? > > Yes, please. Ok, will do. 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/
