[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141008234541.GQ4609@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:45:41 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, atull@...nsource.altera.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: of: Lower the severity of the error with no
container
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
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.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists