Re: [PATCH] regulator: of: Lower the severity of the error with no container

From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Thu Oct 09 2014 - 12:15:00 EST

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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at