Hi! > > > > It could be more than one instance of LED with the same name in the > > > > modular systems. For example, "status" or "uid" LED can be located > > > > on chassis and on each line card of modular system. > > > > In order to avoid conflicts with duplicated names, append platform > > > > device Id, which is unquie, to LED name after driver name. > > > > Thus, for example, "status" LED on chassis is to be called, like it > > > > is called now on non modular systems, on which platform device Id is > > > > not > > > > specified: "mlxreg:status:green". While for the line cards LEDs it > > > > will be called like: "mlxreg48:status:green", > > > > "mlxreg66:status:green", etcetera. > > > > > > No. > > > > > > You really should not have mlxreg: in the LED label. It is useless. > > 'mlxreg' is device name, which could be CPLD or FPGA. > It should be in label. No. You can try to explain what "mlxreg" means, but... You can get away with "eth0" as a device name. We should talk about "switch0" I guess. > There also few other reasons for that. > > This name is used in thousands system in the field and > customers use it in their application. That may be reason not to change existing names. > We used to provide our ASIC and CPLD or FPGA logic > (Verilog) to ODM vendors, which build their own switch > on top of it and use our drivers. So, the can implement > additional LED on their switches, not controlled by our > drivers and device name 'mlxreg' allows to distinct between > LED objects. > > Actually name like 'mlxreg48', 'mlxreg56' are yet another > 'mlxreg' devices with appended physical bus Id. But noone is currently using mlxreg123 in their applications, so that part is not going in. Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
