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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20141009000555.GA27476@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:05:55 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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 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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/