From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754669AbYIYLyM (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:54:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753424AbYIYLx6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:53:58 -0400 Received: from mta23.gyao.ne.jp ([125.63.38.249]:13126 "EHLO mx.gate01.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753162AbYIYLx5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:53:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:53:38 +0900 From: Paul Mundt To: Joakim Tjernlund Cc: Ben Nizette , "Hans J. Koch" , gregkh@suse.de, Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: UIO device name Message-ID: <20080925115337.GA9334@linux-sh.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Mundt , Joakim Tjernlund , Ben Nizette , "Hans J. Koch" , gregkh@suse.de, Linux-Kernel References: <20080924093551.GB7591@linux-sh.org> <1222250279.12624.195.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> <20080924102230.GB2973@local> <1222255981.12624.215.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> <20080924114743.GA9694@linux-sh.org> <1222259894.12624.247.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> <1222297057.4037.12.camel@moss.renham> <1222337151.12624.293.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> <1222339729.3938.15.camel@moss.renham> <1222342868.12624.304.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1222342868.12624.304.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.