From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Gortmaker Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: pxa: fix build failure for regulator consumer in em-x270.c Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:57:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4F747844.9000900@windriver.com> References: <1331244366-6147-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <4F732C97.2030804@compulab.co.il> <20120328152743.GW3232@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F73356D.5080401@windriver.com> <20120328161305.GZ3232@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F73437B.6070806@windriver.com> <4F7471A0.6070208@compulab.co.il> <20120329145436.GS3668@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]:39980 "EHLO mail.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933384Ab2C2O5U (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:57:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120329145436.GS3668@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mark Brown Cc: Igor Grinberg , haojian.zhuang@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org On 12-03-29 10:54 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:28:48PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote: >> On 03/28/12 18:59, Paul Gortmaker 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, > >>> -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...). > > No the platform device numbering should be totally stable for a given > board unless someone deliberately sets out to renumber them - the .ids > are explicitly assigned by the board when it registers the device. > >> So, Mark, how do you think the above issues can be handled without >> putting NULL into the dev_name? > > It shouldn't be a problem I think. Mark, Would you like me to send a v3 with the .0 and .1 added, or are you OK with making that small change to v2 yourself? Paul. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com (Paul Gortmaker) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:57:08 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: pxa: fix build failure for regulator consumer in em-x270.c In-Reply-To: <20120329145436.GS3668@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1331244366-6147-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <4F732C97.2030804@compulab.co.il> <20120328152743.GW3232@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F73356D.5080401@windriver.com> <20120328161305.GZ3232@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F73437B.6070806@windriver.com> <4F7471A0.6070208@compulab.co.il> <20120329145436.GS3668@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <4F747844.9000900@windriver.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12-03-29 10:54 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:28:48PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote: >> On 03/28/12 18:59, Paul Gortmaker 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, > >>> -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...). > > No the platform device numbering should be totally stable for a given > board unless someone deliberately sets out to renumber them - the .ids > are explicitly assigned by the board when it registers the device. > >> So, Mark, how do you think the above issues can be handled without >> putting NULL into the dev_name? > > It shouldn't be a problem I think. Mark, Would you like me to send a v3 with the .0 and .1 added, or are you OK with making that small change to v2 yourself? Paul.