>>>>>>> So the node names should be
>>>>>>> can@1c000 {
>>>>>>> can@1d000 {
>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Bhaskar] As there are two CAN controllers on P1010,So won't it be better
>>>>>> to distinguish it by can0 and can1 instead by simple "can" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like the way to do that is to assign a label to those devices
>>>>> and then associate the label with an alias. I have no idea how that
>>>>> works under the hood, but it is the way other files are set up. Take a
>>>>> look at arch/powerpc/boot/dts/bamboo.dts for how they define the serial
>>>>> interfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> Grant or Wolfgang, is that the right way to handle the concern about
>>>>> names or does it have no practical effect with the Linux kernel?
>>>>
>>>> It has not effect. The label is just if you need to reference it via some
>>>> other means.
>>>
>>> Does the alias have an effect?
>>
>> nope
>
> Then how does the device number get associated with a particular device
What do you mean by device number?
> and how is user-space ensured a consistent namespace?
that is left to udev rules.
- k
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
