Hello,
On 01/06/2017 11:00 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> In the new DTS bindings for DSA (dsa2), the "ethernet" and "link"
> phandles are respectively mandatory and exclusive to CPU port and DSA
> link device tree nodes.
>
> Simplify dsa2.c a bit by checking the presence of such phandle instead
> o
Hello,
On 01/06/2017 11:47 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 01/06/2017 02:20 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> If one wants to rename an interface, udev rules can be used as usual.
>>
>> Hi Vivien
>>
>> Do you have some examples?
>>
>> A quick look at udevadm info suggests we can use
>>
>> ATTR{phys_port
On 01/06/2017 02:20 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> If one wants to rename an interface, udev rules can be used as usual.
>
> Hi Vivien
>
> Do you have some examples?
>
> A quick look at udevadm info suggests we can use
>
> ATTR{phys_port_id} and ATTR{phys_switch_id}
>
> Humm, it would be nice to kn
In the new DTS bindings for DSA (dsa2), the "ethernet" and "link"
phandles are respectively mandatory and exclusive to CPU port and DSA
link device tree nodes.
Simplify dsa2.c a bit by checking the presence of such phandle instead
of checking the redundant "label" property.
Then the Linux philoso
> If one wants to rename an interface, udev rules can be used as usual.
Hi Vivien
Do you have some examples?
A quick look at udevadm info suggests we can use
ATTR{phys_port_id} and ATTR{phys_switch_id}
Humm, it would be nice to know why the second switch has a
phys_switch_id of 0100.
How
