On Friday, October 04, 2013 09:28:27 AM Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 10/03/2013 07:19 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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. > I see. Indeed, this sounds a better idea. At quick look is even more simple. Well, this is slightly ambiguous. What exactly do you mean by "ACPI names"? -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
