chrysn <chr...@fsfe.org> wrote:
> Do we have any existing text on these kinds of stability? Do we want to?
> If so, is that RDM material or really just a note to the board porting
> documentation?
Perhaps not everyone is aware of, has lived through with great frustration,
the multiple times the "indices" for ethernet devices have changed on Linux
(and BSD and Solaris).
From order of linking in the kernel for ISA devices, to cmdline= order, to
PCI reverse index order (a goof), to PCI index order, to moving from ethX to
ensXXX order due to PCI vs USB ordering, to udev for consistent ordering
despite hotplug, to...
Fortunately, most devices in the SoC which we typically run on are not
hotpluggable. Integer indices are really very convenient, but not stable.
But, that doesn't mean we should use names at runtime, but perhaps it means
that we should have a name->indice resolution step that is part of the
linking step.
> # Long-term stability
> Board identities are generally stable: While they may be renamed if it
turns
> out that the old name was misleading, a physical board that worked with a
given
> name in one release can be expected to work with the next release.
Yes, but refactoring.
We tend to start with some specific vendorSOC-CPU-devel-board name, and then
refactor out CPU or SOC, for other devel-board.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
