Hi Gregory
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:43:43 +0200
Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
>
> On jeu., août 25 2016, Ralph Sennhauser
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jason.
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:48:36 +
> > Jason Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:41:02PM +0200, Ralp
Hi Ralph,
On jeu., août 25 2016, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Hi Jason.
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:48:36 +
> Jason Cooper wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:41:02PM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
>> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:15:31 +0200
>> > Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> > > O
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 09:38:39AM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> I'm also not interested in a never ending thread. It's moot that udev
> can't rename to kernel names sanely and we were sold ep34aj17asz98 as
> the replacement. Or that tearing apart the casing to replace the wifi
> modules with an
Hi Jason.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:48:36 +
Jason Cooper wrote:
> All,
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:41:02PM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:15:31 +0200
> > Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 19:10:04 +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> > >
> > > The
All,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:41:02PM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:15:31 +0200
> Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 19:10:04 +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> >
> > The people who can take this decision are rather the maintainers of
> > the platform itsel
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:52:00PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> I'll let the platform maintainers decide what's the least
> intrusive/problematic option. Both solutions have drawbacks, so it's
> really a "political" decision to make here.
I think the main valid argument for a revert is that it
Hi Thomas
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:15:31 +0200
Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 19:10:04 +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
>
> > Going forward, as we disagree and it's basically a political
> > decision, whom do we ask to rule here? Linus?
>
> I don't think Linus will car
Hello,
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:27:58 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:14:44PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Depends on the network driver I believe. But with an e1000e NIC plugged
> > in a PCIe slot, it indeed gets assigned as eth0, and the internal
> > mvneta device
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:10:23PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Well certainly doing udevtrigger -n -v I see no ethernet devices (but
> lots of other things). Looking in sysfs it is possible to dereive which
> ethX belongs to which port based on the directory names, but that's
> probably not t
Hello,
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 19:10:04 +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Going forward, as we disagree and it's basically a political decision,
> whom do we ask to rule here? Linus?
I don't think Linus will care about random issues on a random
platform :-)
The people who can take this decision are
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:14:44PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Depends on the network driver I believe. But with an e1000e NIC plugged
> in a PCIe slot, it indeed gets assigned as eth0, and the internal
> mvneta devices get eth1, eth2, etc.
Which of course means the change does not actually e
Hello,
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:07:27 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > The nice thing about having the order in the dtb I thought was that it
> > wont ever change.
>
> I wonder, if someone was to build a box with this cpu, and add a PCIe
> network device, which order would they get probed in?
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:10:04PM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> And in how many places this discrepancy was documented? You won't be
> able to update them all. Mailing lists, blogs, fora posts and what ever
> else. I'd say the damage is done and can't be fixed by simply changing
> the order now
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:50:11 +0200
Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:11:58 +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
>
> > Commit cb4f71c4298853db0c6751b1209e4535956f136c changes the order of
> > the network interfaces for armada-38x. As a special exception to the
> > "order by r
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 06:43:34PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Well, just like the for the documentation aspect, you're seeing this
> from the OpenWRT/LEDE angle only. Other people are using plenty of
> other things.
>
> We knew it would potentially cause some breakage, so it was a
> trade-of
Hello,
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:19:33 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > So having things match the documentation numbering was in our opinion
> > the least confusing thing moving forward. We should have done it
> > earlier, but we thought that the rule "order by register address" was a
> > very st
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 04:50:11PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> We had many many users getting confused by the fact that the order of
> the network interfaces was inverted compared to:
>
> * The board documentations
> * The U-Boot numbering
> * And to a lesser extent, the vendor kernel
>
>
Hello,
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:11:58 +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Commit cb4f71c4298853db0c6751b1209e4535956f136c changes the order of
> the network interfaces for armada-38x. As a special exception to the
> "order by register address" rule says the comment in the dtsi. The
> commit messages e
Dear List, Thomas, Gregory
Commit cb4f71c4298853db0c6751b1209e4535956f136c changes the order of
the network interfaces for armada-38x. As a special exception to the
"order by register address" rule says the comment in the dtsi. The
commit messages even calls it a violation.
I can't remember havin
19 matches
Mail list logo
