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:
>
> > > 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
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
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
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
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
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:
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.
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
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
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:45:41AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:59:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > There is a log message "no parameters" for each regulator. This is printed
> > unconditionally from print_constraints().
>
> > Looking through the code again, looks
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:59:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> There is a log message "no parameters" for each regulator. This is printed
> unconditionally from print_constraints().
> Looking through the code again, looks like this is on purpose. It is just a
> bit
> annoying to get lots of
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:36:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:34:03PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > Would it also be possible to lower the severity of the "no parameters"
> > message ?
>
> Could you be more specific please?
There is a log message "no parameters"
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:34:03PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Would it also be possible to lower the severity of the "no parameters"
> message ?
Could you be more specific please?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:09:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Description of regulators should generally be optional so if there is no
> DT node for the regulators container then we shouldn't print an error
> message. Lower the severity of the message to debug level (it might help
> someone work
Description of regulators should generally be optional so if there is no
DT node for the regulators container then we shouldn't print an error
message. Lower the severity of the message to debug level (it might help
someone work out what went wrong) and while we're at it say what we were
looking
Description of regulators should generally be optional so if there is no
DT node for the regulators container then we shouldn't print an error
message. Lower the severity of the message to debug level (it might help
someone work out what went wrong) and while we're at it say what we were
looking
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:09:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Description of regulators should generally be optional so if there is no
DT node for the regulators container then we shouldn't print an error
message. Lower the severity of the message to debug level (it might help
someone work out
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:34:03PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Would it also be possible to lower the severity of the no parameters
message ?
Could you be more specific please?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:36:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:34:03PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Would it also be possible to lower the severity of the no parameters
message ?
Could you be more specific please?
There is a log message no parameters for each
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:59:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
There is a log message no parameters for each regulator. This is printed
unconditionally from print_constraints().
Looking through the code again, looks like this is on purpose. It is just a
bit
annoying to get lots of those
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:45:41AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:59:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
There is a log message no parameters for each regulator. This is printed
unconditionally from print_constraints().
Looking through the code again, looks like this
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
