Hi Marc, just curious. Would it violate any conventions to set the netdevice name from the device tree node name when calling alloc_candev() in mcp251xfd_probe()? https://github.com/marckleinebudde/linux/blob/mcp251xfd-uinc/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251xfd/mcp251xfd-core.c#L2821 The thing is, a dt overlay from a HAT eeprom would not provide the necessary udev rules but it contains knowledge about the (connector) name which could be set by the driver. Thanks and Best Regards, Patrick [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/CAL_JsqKudVXevW2YdEPvbOgK4CoszjqKNvCDrvKx-iOqRj0KWg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Am 16.12.20 um 23:11 schrieb Sven Schuchmann: >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2020 21:27 >>> created /etc/udev/rules.d/70-can.rules with >>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DEVPATH=="/devices/platform/soc/*/*/*/spi0.0/net/can?", NAME="can0" >>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DEVPATH=="/devices/platform/soc/*/*/*/spi1.0/net/can?", NAME="can1" >> >> Note: IFAIK this will not work with newer versions of udev.... >> >>> and tadaaaaa: >>> [ 6.917578] spi_master spi1: will run message pump with realtime priority >>> [ 6.936957] mcp251xfd spi1.0 can0: MCP2518FD rev0.0 (-RX_... >>> [ 6.956523] spi_master spi0: will run message pump with realtime priority >>> [ 6.971942] mcp251xfd spi0.0 can1: MCP2518FD rev0.0 (-RX_... >>> [ 7.006515] mcp251xfd spi1.0 rename3: renamed from can0 >>> [ 7.041681] mcp251xfd spi0.0 can0: renamed from can1 >>> [ 7.091563] mcp251xfd spi1.0 can1: renamed from rename3 >> >> ...the "rename" trick doesn't work anymore. Better use a differnet name, e.g.: >> mcp0 and mcp1. > > okay, understood and renamed: > [ 6.673732] mcp251xfd spi0.0 mcp0: renamed from can0 > [ 6.716051] mcp251xfd spi1.0 mcp1: renamed from can1 > > Thanks! > > Sven >
