Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:53:38 +0900 | From | Paul Mundt <> | Subject | Re: UIO device name |
| |
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:41:08PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 20:48 +1000, Ben Nizette wrote: > > UIO is an interface type, not a bus type. UIO isn't a subsystem as > > such, it's a user interface. If the interface is consistent (even if > > the backing device is different) I don't see the problem with consistent > > naming. > > Do you see a problem with letting the protocol driver choose another > one? Why not offer the user the chance to let the name mean something? > This thread is still going? Amazing. Anyways, your protocol driver argument doesn't make any sense. Take the case of uio_pdrv or the genirq variant. This is the name it hands off to the core, while the devices that register underneath it all have their own names set. Go grep for all instances of uio_pdrv platform data in the architecture code. I'm getting the impression you haven't actually even bothered to look at the name entries.
Breaking the uio%d stuff is unacceptable, and if you need explanations for why, then you really shouldn't be touching subsystem code in the first place. Additionally, so far you haven't been able to show a single example of something you can't already do with the information in userspace today. If you want more descriptive names, use udev or symlinks you kick off from the script.
| |