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 is on purpose. It is just a > > bit > > annoying to get lots of those messages. One of the systems I am dealing > > with has > > 17 LTC2978 chips in it, with 8 channels each. That results in 136 times "no > > parameters" in the boot log. And that is not even a fully populated system; > > if fully populated, there can be more than 60 of those chips. 500+ lines of > > similar log messages is really a bit on the high side. > > > It might help if there was a way to silence the messages, ie to make > > "print_constraints" optional. > > Ah, from the constraints rather than from the DT parsing. I do like > having it there since it's enormously helpful in debugging and that is > a... specialist number of regulators you have in your system. We can
Yes, this is a pretty large backbone switch. Kind of amazing how many sensors are in those systems. > 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. 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. Thanks, Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/