On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 04:20:46PM +0000, Andy Green wrote: > On 03/11/2011 04:08 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > >On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:50:32AM +0000, Andy Green wrote: > >>The particular use that suggested this is on Panda, it would be > >>ideal to be able to set a flag in the usb device's platform data > >>that forces it to be named eth%d since it's a hardwired asset on the > >>board with an RJ45 socket. > > > >If you _really_ need to name your network devices in a specific order, > >then use the userspace tools we already have to do this. That is what > >they were created for, why ignore them? > > I think maybe discussion of this use-case, its usbnet specificity, > and the alternative options to achieve that have derailed discussion > about what I was actually asking. > > Is it true that for on-board devices, it can sometimes be legitimate > and useful to be able to deliver platform_data from the board file > through to stuff on a USB bus, same as you would for memory mapped, > I2C, other busses? > > Or is that it since it is USB, it can never be useful or legitimate, > no matter what different kind of wired-up on-board USB device it is, > to have the board definition file configure the driver for that > instantiation? Since it is USB, it is always discoverable, so it doesn't make any sense to have this type of thing. And since your only example was a network device, I think you proved your point :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
