[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <160167477566.310579.12040108464021349450@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 14:39:35 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] spmi: prefix spmi bus device names with "spmi"
Quoting Mark Brown (2020-10-02 11:04:30)
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 10:48:32AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Mark Brown (2020-10-02 09:03:24)
>
> > > ...and doing this in the dev_name() should help other diagnostic users
> > > (like dev_printk() for example).
>
> > Don't thinks like dev_printk() prefix the bus name? See
> > dev_driver_string()? So I agree that having the bus name is useful, but
> > confused why there are testing scripts and things on top of regmap
> > debugfs
>
> Not that I've ever noticed, eg on the console.
I see things like this on my console:
[ 1.684617] spmi spmi-0: PMIC arbiter version v5 (0x50000000)
and 'spmi' is the bus name I'm thinking about. But I think that's
because there isn't a driver attached. Nothing prints for the 0-00
device by default, so I enabled the debug print for it and I see
[ 1.693280] pmic-spmi 0-00: 28: unknown v2.0
Anyway, the device name was written to follow i2c as far as I can tell.
If scripts, i.e. computers, have a hard time figuring out the name of
the device then fix the script?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists