On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:57:15 -0700
Florian Fainelli [off-list ref] wrote:

On 10/23/18 11:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:20:36 -0700
Florian Fainelli [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

On 10/23/18 11:02 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:  

quoted

On Tue, 2018-10-23 at 10:03 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:    

quoted

quoted

I also noted that using status = "disabled" didn't work either to
create a fix name scheme. Even worse, all the eth I/F after gets
renumbered. It seems to me there is value in having stability in
eth I/F naming at boot. Then userspace(udev) can rename if need
be. 

Sure would like to known more about why this feature is not
wanted ?

I found
  https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4122441/
You quote policy as reason but surely it must be better to
have something stable, connected to the hardware name, than
semirandom naming?    

If the Device Tree nodes are ordered by ascending base register
address, my understanding is that you get the same order as far as
platform_device creation goes, this may not be true in the future
if Rob decides to randomize that, but AFAICT this is still true.
This may not work well with status = disabled properties being
inserted here and there, but we have used that here and it has
worked for as far as I can remember doing it.  

So this is unstable in several respects. First is changing the
enabled/disabled status in the deivecetrees provided by the kernel.

Second is if you have hardware hotplug mechanism either by firmware
or by loading device overlays.

Third is the case when the devicetree is not built as part of the
kernel but is instead provided by firmware that initializes the
low-level hardware details. Then the ordering by address is not
guaranteed nor is that the same address will be used to access the
same interface every time. There might be multiple ways to
configure the hardware depending on firmware configuration and/or
version.

   

quoted

Second, you might want to name network devices ethX, but what if I
want to name them ethernetX or fooX or barX? Should we be
accepting a mechanism in the kernel that would allow someone to
name the interfaces the way they want straight from a name being
provided in Device Tree?  

Clearly if there is text Ethernet1 printed above the Ethernet port
we should provide a mechanism to name the port Ethernet1 by
default.  

Yes, but then have a specific property that is flexible enough to
retrieve things like "vital product information". For DSA switches, we
have an optional "label" property which names the network device
directly like it would be found on the product's case. Ideally this
should be much more flexible such that it can point to the appropriate
node/firmware service/whatever to get that name, which is what some
people have been working on lately, see [1].

[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/14/1039

That's nice for something unique per-device like MAC address. However,
for something per-model like port labels DT properties should suffice.

The point is don't re-purpose the aliases which is something that
exists within Device Tree to basically provide a shorter path to a
specific set of nodes for the boot program to mangle and muck with
instead of having to resolve a full path to a node. At least that is
how I conceive it.

Now what complicates the matter is that some OSes like Linux tend to
use it to also generate seemingly stable index for peripherals that
are numbered by index such as SPI, I2C, etc buses, which is why we are
having this conversation here, see below for more.

quoted

quoted

Aliases are fine for providing relative stability within the Device
Tree itself and boot programs that might need to modify the Device
Tree (e.g: inserting MAC addresses) such that you don't have to
encode logic to search for nodes by compatible strings etc. but
outside of that use case, it seems to me that you can resolve every
naming decision in user-space.  

However, this is pushing platform-specific knowledge to userspace.
The way the Ethernet interface is attached and hence the device
properties usable for identifying the device uniquely are
platform-specific.  

There is always going to be some amount of platform specific knowledge
to user-space, what matters is the level of abstraction that is
presented to you.

quoted

On the other hand, aliases are universal when provided. If they are
good enough to assign a MAC address they are good enough to provide
a stable default name.  

We are not talking about the same aliases then. The special Device
Tree node named "aliases" is a way to create shorted Device Tree node
paths, it is not by any means an equivalent for what I would rather
call a "label", or "port name" or silk screen annotation on a PCB for
instance.

However, if the kernel ethN names are deterministic based on something
like aliases it is trivial to translate them to "port name". As it is
they are pretty much random which is the issue aliases *can* solve.

quoted

I think this is indeed forcing the userspace to reinvent several
wheels for no good reason.  

udev or systemd will come up with some stable names for your network
device right off the bat.

As has been already pointed out these names are not stable for various
reasons. *Making* them stable is the whole point of this discussion.
 

If you are deeply embedded maybe you don't
want those, but then use something like the full path in /sys to get
some stable names based on the SoC's topology.

However, it some devices might be disabled depending on the device
configuration generating stable names is not that easy. Also if bus
topology may differ depending on device/firmware configuration you
cannot assign stable names based just on /sys hierarchy. Also it is
said that /sys hierarchy is not an ABI in the kernel docs so you should
not base your stable device names which *are* an ABI on the
unstable /sys hierarchy.

quoted

What is the problem with adding the aliases?  

aliases is IMHO the wrong tool for the job because it is too limiting,
you want it to be used to have Ethernet controller instance N to be
named "ethN", what if someone tomorrows says, no this is not good, I
want the aliases to automatically name my network devices
"ethernet-controllerN" or "blahblahN"? You see where I am getting
with that?

Then you can write udev rule to translate ethN to blahlbahN and so long
as the ethN is stable the translation is stable as well. Alternatively
you might want to use a different devicetree property if one existed.

And yes, I do realize that Linux has traditionally named Ethernet
adapters ethN, but also allows people to name interfaces just the way
they want even from within the drivers themselves.

Now imagine your platform uses ACPI, and there are no aliases there to
point a node with a shorter name, how we would go about naming your
Ethernet controller unless there is a specific VPD/label/sticker
property that can be somehow be retried?

There is biosdevname for that which uses proprietary BIOS extensions to
look up device names in BIOS.

Thanks

Michal