On 03/28/12 18:59, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On 12-03-28 12:13 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:59:41AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>> On 12-03-28 11:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>> static struct platform_device em_x270_gps_userspace_consumer = {
>>> .name = "reg-userspace-consumer",
>>> .id = 0,
>>
>>> static struct platform_device em_x270_gprs_userspace_consumer = {
>>> .name = "reg-userspace-consumer",
>>> .id = 1,
>>
>>> Note that the existing names currently don't incorporate the .id
>>> field as a suffix, and so never were unique.
>>
>> No, this is just a basic part of how platform devices work - the device
>> name is always the same and if you've got more than one of them they get
>> different .ids. dev_name() returns name.id, or just name if id is set
>> to -1 indicating that there's onyl one device of a given type.
>
> OK, so Igor - can you simply retest the v2 patch, but make the
> two trivial changes:
>
> -REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo3, "reg-userspace-consumer", "vcc gps");
> +REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo3, "reg-userspace-consumer.0", "vcc gps");
>
> -REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, "reg-userspace-consumer", "vcc gprs");
> +REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, "reg-userspace-consumer.1", "vcc gprs");
Well, I thought of this solution, but I don't like it, as it makes
the whole thing very fragile and sensitive to the reg-userspace-consumer
platform device registration order and count, isn't it?
(That's why I proposed to use NULL...).
So, Mark, how do you think the above issues can be handled without
putting NULL into the dev_name?
--
Regards,
Igor.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
