On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 08:32:03AM +0200, David Jander wrote: > > Dear Sascha, > > On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 12:39:50 +0200 > Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > It doesn't interfere with the kernel. The kernel currently ignores this > > aliases. There are patches floating to let the kernel honor this > > aliases, but then they should simply have the same effect as they have > > in barebox. > > That doesn't _feel_ right. Changing standard device names in Linux via aliases > in the DT might be a fancy idea, but it'd have a different reason/use-case > than in the case of barebox. IMHO using the same DT for both seems to be the > Right Thing (tm) to do, but then the semantics must be the same also. > If I need aliases in the DT only to be able to tell devices apart from each > other in barebox, while in Linux the effect would only be a rather inconvenient > renaming of devices with no other added value, I think we need a different way > to differentiate devices in barebox. Why not just use a simple driver-provided > prefix (mci, mmc, usb, sata, etc...) for now? That's not enough. We also need a fixed numbering. Otherwise a nonremovable eMMC and a removable SD card change their device names depending on the detect order. Using aliases to provide a numbering is done in the Kernel aswell at least for gpios, uarts and i2c busses, so expanding this scheme to mmc/sd slots doesn't feel too wrong to me. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
