Hi!

> > > > It could be more than one instance of LED with the same name in the
> > > > modular systems. For example, "status" or "uid" LED can be located
> > > > on chassis and on each line card of modular system.
> > > > In order to avoid conflicts with duplicated names, append platform
> > > > device Id, which is unquie, to LED name after driver name.
> > > > Thus, for example, "status" LED on chassis is to be called, like it
> > > > is called now on non modular systems, on which platform device Id is
> > > > not
> > > > specified: "mlxreg:status:green". While for the line cards LEDs it
> > > > will be called like: "mlxreg48:status:green",
> > > > "mlxreg66:status:green", etcetera.
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > You really should not have mlxreg: in the LED label. It is useless.
> 
> 'mlxreg' is device name, which could be CPLD or FPGA.
> It should be in label.

No.

You can try to explain what "mlxreg" means, but...

You can get away with "eth0" as a device name. We should talk about
"switch0" I guess.

> There also few other reasons for that.
> 
> This name is used in thousands system in the field and
> customers use it in their application.

That may be reason not to change existing names.

> We used to provide our ASIC and CPLD or FPGA logic
> (Verilog) to ODM vendors, which build their own switch
> on top of it and use our drivers. So, the can implement
> additional LED on their switches, not controlled by our
> drivers and device name 'mlxreg' allows to distinct between
> LED objects.
> 
> Actually name like 'mlxreg48', 'mlxreg56' are yet another
> 'mlxreg' devices with appended physical bus Id.

But noone is currently using mlxreg123 in their applications, so that
part is not going in.

Best regards,

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html