On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, David Brownell wrote:
> >>- It'd be more appropriate for PCI devices to copy pci_device.name into
> >> device.name and get the user-friendly names from the PCI device name
> >> database (when available), and only fallback to those nasty strings
> >> when the more user-friendly names aren't available.
> >
> >
> > That is what happens with PCI devices. They're not appearing as meaningful
> > names probably because CONFIG_PCI_NAMES isn't set. Whether or not that
> > information belongs in the kernel is another debate.
>
> ERm ... it wasn't on the systems I looked at. CONFIG_PCI_NAMES has
> clearly been set, but the names were the user-unfriendly style. And
> yet I know the kernel has them accessible, since they're presented
> by the USB layer and by /proc/pci. But not in driverfs.
>
> I now see some code (presumably yours) to set those two fields
> to be identical, in pci_scan_device(), but the useful description
> is instead set in pci_scan_slot(). Presumably this is a case of
> various init paths in PCI not wholly agreeing with each other;
> maybe pci_name_device() should set both name/description fields
> instead of only the one. (Though ... why have two copies? :)
Hrm, they do appear to be out of sync. Thanks for pointing that out.
> You didn't respond to the question about changing the identifier
> from "name" to be the more appropriate "description" ... is that
> because you're still thinking (it'd cost to change) or because
> you like using the (IMO ambiguous) identifier "name" there?
That's what the name field is - the ascii description of the device. I
understand that "description" is more obvious, so I'll consider the
change.
-pat
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:07 EST