# Re: \[PATCH v10 5/5\] \[powerpc\] Fix up fsl-flexcan device tree binding.

- From: Kumar Gala \<hidden\>
- Date: 2011-08-10 17:26:26 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2011/08/9465862
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2011/08/9465814/t.md

```text
>>>>>>> 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
```