On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:22:50PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 09/15/2016 12:51 PM, Patrick Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >>>> I'm not sure there. When I open /dev/ttyUSB0 I'm talking to the USB0
> >>>> serial device. When I open /dev/mtd0, I'm talking to the mtd0 device.
> >>>> So when I open /dev/ipmi-bt-bmc, I would expect to talk to the BMC
> >>>> device?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. I went a little too far in the global rename. /dev/ipmi-bt-bmc makes 
> >>
> >> I meant /dev/ipmi-bt-host ! :)
> > 
> > Does it make sense to have these numbered?  I thought Brenden proposed
> > an emulated bt-over-i2c.  We could also conceive of an SOC that had
> > multiple LPC (+bt) engines to facilitate multiple nodes, or an off-board
> > FPGA to do it.
> > 
> 
> If we expect to have multiple btbridged process running, we will 
> need multiple device nodes. How we should name them depends partly 
> on the driver I think. 
> 
> We could keep the prefix 'ipmi-bt' because it identifies the BT 
> interface described in the IPMI specs and use node /dev/ipmi-bt-host 
> for the original bt_bmc, (used be bt_host) driver. This one will be 
> unique. 
> 
> The others could use : 
> 	
> 		/dev/ipmi-bt-lpc
> 		/dev/ipmi-bt-i2c-<bus>

I was thinking along the lines of /dev/ipmi-bt-hostN.  Maybe we do this
through udev rules though?

> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> C.

-- 
Patrick Williams