Hi Joachim-
Joachim Fenkes wrote:
> Nathan Lynch <[email protected]> wrote on 29.08.2007 20:12:32:
> > Will anything break?
>
> Nope. Userspace programs should not depend on ibmebus' way of naming the
> devices; especially since some overly long loc_codes tended to be
> truncated and thus rendered useless. I have tested IBM's DLPAR tools
> against the changed kernel, and they didn't break.
Okay.
> > Also, I dislike this approach of duplicating the firmware device tree
> > path in sysfs.
>
> Why? Any specific reasons for your dislike?
struct device's bus_id field is but 20 bytes in size. Too close for
comfort?
> > Are GX/ibmebus devices guaranteed to be children of
> > the same node in the OF device tree? If so, their unit addresses will
> > be unique, and therefore suitable values for bus_id. I believe this
> > is what the powerpc vio bus code does.
>
> While there's no such guarantee (as in "officially signed document"), yes,
> I expect future GX devices to also appear beneath the OFDT root node. For
> the existing devices, the unit addresses are already part of the device
> name, so I save the need to use sprintf() again. Plus, I rather like using
> the full_name since it also contains a descriptive name as opposed to
> being just nondescript numbers, helping the layman (ie user) to make sense
> out of a dev_id.
Okay, but your layman isn't supposed to be relying on any
user-friendly properties of the name :) Hope he doesn't work on a
distro installer.
Anyway, if you're still confident in this approach, I relent. :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
