On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 14:40 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:28:00PM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote: > > Scott Wood wrote: > > > >> The physical address certainly is useful when you have more than one > >> device of the same name. > > > > What I meant was that the physical address isn't helpful by itself. > > > >> So then you'd get "firmware-ucc.e01024". What if there's another ucc at > >> e0102480? For devices with longer names, you'd have even less precision > >> in the address. > > > > Maybe we need to consider a more sophisticated algorithm, one that > > guarantees that the device name in its entirety is preserved? Either that, > > or replace the physical address with something shorter, like the offset to > > the root node only? That way, ucc.e0102400 because just ucc.2400. > > You should do something :) > > In the near future (2.6.26) there will not be a limit on the size of the > file name, so we should not have this problem anymore.
Not even .25 ? damn ! Any way that fix can be fastracked ? This limitation has been a major PITA for some time now (this is just -one- example where it gets in the way). Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
