On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 05:22:45PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 10/03/2013 04:37 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >This is making me wonder if we shouldn't be taking the stable names we > >get from ACPI as the dev_name() instead of our internal ones on ACPI > >systems (and possibly something similar on DT) rather than adding custom > >code like this. > This is actually somewhat confusing issue. I think it's relatively > easy to switch using ACPI names within ASoC core (by modifying > fmt_single_name or something like that). > Problem is that for ACPI enumerated client devices the dev_name(dev) > still comes from those subsystems as before. So for instance dev_ > prints in codec driver or ASoC core keeps printing "rt5640 0-001c:" > as before and I personally find it a bit more confusing if internal > ASoC names don't match as easily with dev_ prints. You're misreading my suggestion. What I'm saying is that it seems like it might be useful to have dev_name() return the ACPI name - this would mean that everything, including all the dev_ prints, would use the same name which would then become stable and tied to hardware.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
