On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 05:14:29PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > 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).
I'll let Kay answer that, last he said, it involves a _lot_ of changes throughout the kernel :( thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
