Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:12:37PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:39:48PM +0530, Koyamangalath, Abhilash wrote: >> > I understand, but is there a subtle reason why are starting from >> > an erroneous-looking -1 rather than a more natural 0 (or 1 ?). > >> -1 means no ID. The IDs are zero-based, so we can't use zero. Just >> change that value and see how things change on sysfs and dmesg then you >> will know what I'm talking about. That's just an implementation decision >> of using -1 to signify "no ID needed". > > Though looking at the report it looks like the omap_device print that's > done during boot is doing the wrong thing here and displaying the -1 > instead of masking it from the print which is what's expected. Agreed. Abhilash, Just send a patch to fix the omap_device printk which is the confusing part. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
