On 03/28/12 18:59, Paul Gortmaker wrote:

On 12-03-28 12:13 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:59:41AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:

quoted

On 12-03-28 11:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

static struct platform_device em_x270_gps_userspace_consumer = {
        .name           = "reg-userspace-consumer",
        .id             = 0,

quoted

static struct platform_device em_x270_gprs_userspace_consumer = {
        .name           = "reg-userspace-consumer",
        .id             = 1,

quoted

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.