On 12-03-29 10:54 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:28:48PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

-REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, "reg-userspace-consumer", "vcc gprs");
+REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, "reg-userspace-consumer.1", "vcc gprs");

quoted

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.

quoted

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.