> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +dfl_dev->type = feature_dev_id_type(pdev);
> > > +dfl_dev->feature_id = (unsigned long long)feature->id;
> > > +
> > > +dfl_dev->dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
> > > +dfl_dev->dev.bus = &dfl_bus_type;
> > > +dfl_dev->dev.release = release_dfl_dev;
> > > +dev_set_name(&dfl_dev->dev, "%s.%d", dev_name(&pdev->dev),
> > > + feature->index);
> >
> > Or it's better to have a generic name for the device on the bus.
>
> mm.. It is good suggestion, we should have a unified name for dfl
> devices.
>
> How about ("dfl.%d.%d", pdev->id, feature->index)
It's quite difficult for people to use related information from these magic
numbers. They are not ids defined in the spec, so just dfl_dev.x with one
unique id seems to be better. If you really need to expose some id
information, maybe you can consider adding some standard sysfs entry
to all dfl_dev, I think that will be easier for users. How do you think?
Thanks
Hao
