Return-path: Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.216.51]:40707 "EHLO mail-qa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751992AbaGJUZI (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:25:08 -0400 Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id k15so93512qaq.38 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:25:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <53BEF2A6.6050103@broadcom.com> References: <1404980258-30853-1-git-send-email-teg@jklm.no> <1404980258-30853-30-git-send-email-teg@jklm.no> <53BEF2A6.6050103@broadcom.com> From: Tom Gundersen Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 22:24:46 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20140710_222512_801707_CCBF0512) Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 29/33] net: brcmfmac - set name assign type To: Arend van Spriel Cc: netdev , LKML , David Miller , David Herrmann , Kay Sievers , Brett Rudley , "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" , Hante Meuleman , John Linville , Linux Wireless List , brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 10-07-14 10:17, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> The name is given by the firmware, so we assume it is predictable. > > How about the scenario where one would have multiple broadcom wifi > devices in the system. Both driver instances would alloc_netdev with > predictable but also the same ifname. Wondering whether we should ignore > the firmware ifname altogether. Hm, that would just fail irrespective of this patch, right? Sounds like ignoring the firmware names is the right thing to do. Cheers, Tom