| Message ID | 1433209679-31389-3-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:47:55PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > The downside of this approach is that whoever gets to debugfs first > the others who come later to not have any debugfs attributes associated > with them. Right, and we do it silently which I'm really not sure about (either way). Let me think...
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c index f6989485c382..9dba0a3d4526 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c @@ -1208,7 +1208,7 @@ static struct regulator *create_regulator(struct regulator_dev *rdev, regulator->debugfs = debugfs_create_dir(regulator->supply_name, rdev->debugfs); if (!regulator->debugfs) { - rdev_warn(rdev, "Failed to create debugfs directory\n"); + rdev_dbg(rdev, "Failed to create debugfs directory\n"); } else { debugfs_create_u32("uA_load", 0444, regulator->debugfs, ®ulator->uA_load);
Failure to create a debugfs node is not an error, but we print a warning upon failure to create the node. Downgrade this to a debug printk so that we're quiet here. This allows multiple drivers to request a CPU's regulator so that CPUfreq and AVSish drivers can coexist. The downside of this approach is that whoever gets to debugfs first the others who come later to not have any debugfs attributes associated with them. Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/regulator/core.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)