On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 10:53:42AM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > On 06/03/2014 20:17, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > On Mar 06, Andrew Lunn wrote: > >>> Can't we fix this so the probe order doesn't affect the name? > >>> > >>> Is that sane? > >> > >> You are not supposed to trust the device name, since probing can > >> happen in parallel, on different buses. udev should have rules to name > >> the interfaces based on the MAC address. On my Debian system i have: > >> > >> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules > >> > >> So what is important is that the MAC addresses are assigned correctly > >> to the device. And DT does that based on MMIO address, so should be > >> reliable, independent of probe order. errr... I've always viewed the udev rules for persistent naming as a hacky work-around. If we have an opportunity to present consistent names to userspace, then we should do that. Otherwise, why would devicetree have the ability to assign aliases? > I was aware of this solution, and indeed for the end user it is the thing > to do. If we're broken, then yes. Once we fix it, then the udev rules would just confirm that the naming is the same from the previous boot. thx, Jason. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
