Re: udev rules for 2 identical webcams + 1 spare cam

[Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:10:10 +0200, Tuxoholic wrote:


>> Von: Camaleón <noelamac@xxxxx.xxx>
>> > SUBSYSTEM=="video4linux", ATTRS{idVendor}=="046d",
>> > ATTRS{idProduct}=="08a2", Name="video%n"
>> 
>> Why "video%n"? Why not using a fixed name for each Logitech webcam?
>> 
>> Just curious O:-)
>> 
>> 
> What do you mean ? - SYMLINK+="webcam%n" ? I tried that, didn't help.

Nope.

I wanted to know why you used Name="video%n" instead Name="video1" and 
Name="video2" in two separate rules/lines.

> The reactived source explains the use of regular expressions in node
> names:
> 
> KERNEL=="fd[0-9]*"
> 
> But SYMLINK+="webcam[1-2]*" produced bogus device nodes - unusable. I
> also tried the bracket expression without the wildcard. It looks like
> udev no longer works this way?
> 
> One more source [1] explained udev rules with identical usb devices like
> this:
> 
> SUBSYSTEM=="video4linux", SUBSYSTEMS=="usb", KERNELS=="1-1", \
> SYMLINK+="webcam1"
> SUBSYSTEM=="video4linux", SUBSYSTEMS=="usb", KERNELS=="1-2", \
> SYMLINK+="webcam2"
> 
> I changed the usb path to my needs, but this syntax is no longer
> working?

I don't follow you here. I was not talking about that :-)

>> Have you tried to enforce the permissions of the webcams
>> (owner/group/mode)?
>> 
>> 
> I tried to force GROUP="video" but didn't help.

What did you put and what did you get?

> Anymore ideas? Should I change the level to sth higher than
> 10-xxxx.rule?

I don't see why :-?

> Is it worth filing a bug report against udev?

I would run more tests before ;-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón