[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170109160744.GE1862@nanopsycho>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 17:07:44 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@...ine-koenig.org>,
Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: dsa: make "label" property optional for
dsa2
Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 05:00:19PM CET, andrew@...n.ch wrote:
>> > No. That should be unique within one switch. In mlxsw we name it "p1",
>> > "p2", ...
>> >
>> > The final netdev names are:
>> > enp3s0np1, enp3s0np2, ...
>>
>
>mlxsw are pci devices, so it follows this convention, i think:
>
> * [P<domain>]p<bus>s<slot>[f<function>][n<phys_port_name>|d<dev_port>]
> * PCI geographical location
>
>Our devices are not on PCI. So they won't follow this. I've no idea
>what they actually follow, since some are MDIO devices, some are SPI
>devices, some are memory mapped.
Got it. We just have to make sure udev names them appropriately.
>
>I'm not against making the label option, but i do want to better
>understand what we get as a result, just to make sure it is sensible.
>
>Vivien, could you try a recent udev and see what happens?
>
> Thanks
> Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists