On 2011-09-07 11:50, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:31:26PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2011-08-29 23:19, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> On 08/29/2011 03:56 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 2011-08-29 21:23, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>> On 08/26/2011 09:48 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> In order to address devices for that the user forgot or is even unable >>>>>> (no_user) to provide an ID, assign an automatically generated one. Such >>>>>> IDs have the format #<number>, thus are outside the name space availing >>>>>> to users. Don't use them for bus naming to avoid any other user-visible >>>>>> change. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think this is a very nice approach. Why not eliminate anonymous >>>>> devices entirely and use a parent derived name for devices that are not >>>>> created by the user? >>>> >>>> This eliminates anonymous devices completely. So I guess you are asking >>>> for a different naming scheme, something like<parent-id>.child#<no> >>>> e.g.? Well, we would end up with fairly long names when a complete >>>> hierarchy is anonymous. What would be the benefit? >>> >>> No, I'm saying that whenever a device is created, it should be given a >>> non-random name. IOW, the names of these devices should be stable. >>> >>>> I'm really just looking for some simple, temporary workaround without >>>> touching the existing fragile naming scheme. What we really need is full >>>> path addressing, but that without preserving all the legacy. >>> >>> Yeah, I understand, and I hesitated making any grander suggestions here, >>> but I'm not sure how much work it would be to just remove any caller >>> that passes NULL for ID and replace it with something more meaningful. I >>> think that's a helpful clean up long term no matter what. >> >> That won't solve the problem of finding a unique device name. If we want >> to derive it from stable device properties (bus addresses etc.), we >> first of all have to define them for all types of devices. And that's >> basically were the discussion exploded last year IIRC. >> > Why not use the OpenFirmware naming that we already have for some > devices instead of inventing something new?
Because I do not want to establish any path names before QOM conversion (including potential device reorganization) has been started. Specifically as I do not need naming for "some" devices, but for all. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux