On Di, 01.12.20 02:17, Konomi (konomikitten@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > So this is the eventual rule I ended up writing after having a lot of > trouble writing a udev rule: > > `ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="ata_port", KERNEL=="ata[0-9]", > TEST=="../../power/control" ATTR{../../power/control}="auto"` > > Here is the rule working: > > ``` > Dec 01 01:33:16 arch systemd-udevd[267]: ata1: > /etc/udev/rules.d/user-powertop-tunables.rules:5 ATTR > '/sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:13.0/ata1/ata_port/ata1/../../power/control' > writing 'auto' > Dec 01 01:33:16 arch systemd-udevd[258]: ata2: > /etc/udev/rules.d/user-powertop-tunables.rules:5 ATTR > '/sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:13.0/ata2/ata_port/ata2/../../power/control' > writing 'auto' > ``` > > Is this a good udev rule or even valid or is using `..` something that > shouldn't be possible? No, that's OK, we do that from time to time too. Of course, I'd avoid it unless there's no better way to match the device. i.e. if you can recognize a device by its own properties it's typically much better than recognizing some subdevice further down and then making change up-top again. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel