From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:45:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: Fix runtime warning caused by duplicate device registration In-Reply-To: <4FF54406.3000307@linaro.org> References: <1341316788-12730-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20120703123552.GC25995@sirena.org.uk> <4FF2EEA1.6080204@linaro.org> <20120703132447.GN29030@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FF2F82D.9080507@linaro.org> <20120703142123.GQ29030@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4FF54406.3000307@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20120705094541.GK4111@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 08:36:38AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On 03/07/12 15:21, Mark Brown wrote: > >This doesn't explain any of the issues, it just says that they exist. > >My best guess would be that at least some of the issue is due to > >instantiating the MFD cells from the device tree but it's hard to say > >clearly. > I'm guessing Arnd's email answered some of the questions you had. > Let me know of you would like me to explain it in any greater > detail. No, frankly. It was just a general "why might we put things in DT" answer which (especially given what you say below) isn't related to the issue at all. > By the way, this patch has nothing to do with registering these > devices when DT is enabled. The code already does that. This is a > bug fix, to stop multiple registration of the ab8500 when DT is > _not_ enabled. Really? It seems really surprising that adding more DT support to the MFD core would have any bearing on something like this... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: