Hi,

Am 2021-07-27 16:56, schrieb Marek Behún:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:15:28 +0200
Michael Walle [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Why do we have to distiguish between LEDs connected to the PHY and 
LEDs
connected to the MAC at all? Why not just name it ethN either if its 
behind
the PHY or the MAC? Does it really matter from the users POV?

Because
1. network interfaces can be renamed
2. network interfaces can be moved between network namespaces. The LED
   subsystem is agnostic to network namespaces

I wasn't talking about ethN being same as the network interface name.
For clarity I'll use ethernetN now. My question was why would you
use ethmacN or ethphyN instead if just ethernetN for both. What is
the reason for having two different names? I'm not sure who is using
that name anyway. If it is for an user, I don't think he is interested
in knowing wether that LED is controlled by the PHY or by the MAC.

So it can for example happen that within a network namespace you
have only one interface, eth0, but in /sys/class/leds you would see
  eth0:green:activity
  eth1:green:activity
So you would know that there are at least 2 network interfaces on the
system, and also with renaming it can happen that the first LED is not
in fact connected to the eth0 interface in your network namespace.

But the first problem persists wether its named ethernetN or ethphyN,
no?

-michael