| 1 |
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Christopher Head <chead@×××××.ca> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:25:39 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> It would be nice if standards like USB incorporated some kind of GUID. |
| 6 |
>> I ended up having to write a udev rule for a pl2303 RS232 adapter to |
| 7 |
>> tie it to a specific USB port precisely so that I could have more than |
| 8 |
>> one and know which one talked to which device. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I'd argue that the udev network interface names were a better (if |
| 11 |
>> painful to transition to) solution to a problem created by somebody |
| 12 |
>> else. Being able to use wildcards in configuration files is probably |
| 13 |
>> an adequate solution for those who are using a single device. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> You mean like a device serial number? Which is totally part of the USB |
| 17 |
> standard, but many devices don’t bother to include one because they |
| 18 |
> would have to be serially programmed in the factory? If your device has |
| 19 |
> a serial number, you can generally see it as a udev attribute and use |
| 20 |
> it to set up meaningful persistent names for multiple |
| 21 |
> otherwise-identical devices. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
++ |
| 24 |
Though stuff like this is why sometimes it makes sense to make things |
| 25 |
a required part of the standard. If the device had access to some |
| 26 |
source of randomness perhaps it could at least flash one on first |
| 27 |
powerup. Of course the only thing that would be worse than not having |
| 28 |
a unique ID would be having a unique ID that isn't unique... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives