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. :) _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
