On 17/06/2020 20:57, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:36 AM Steven Price wrote:
On 17/06/2020 15:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:43:34PM -0400, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
Reviewed-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:05:44PM +0200, Krzysztof
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:36 AM Steven Price wrote:
>
> On 17/06/2020 15:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:43:34PM -0400, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
> >> Reviewed-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:05:44PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>
On 17/06/2020 15:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:43:34PM -0400, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
Reviewed-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:05:44PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
There is no point to print deferred probe (and its failures to get
resources)
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:43:34PM -0400, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:05:44PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > There is no point to print deferred probe (and its failures to get
> > resources) as an error. Also there is no need
Reviewed-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:05:44PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> There is no point to print deferred probe (and its failures to get
> resources) as an error. Also there is no need to print regulator errors
> twice.
>
> In case of multiple probe tries this
There is no point to print deferred probe (and its failures to get
resources) as an error. Also there is no need to print regulator errors
twice.
In case of multiple probe tries this would pollute the dmesg.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Reviewed-by: Steven Price
---
Changes since v2:
6 matches
Mail list logo