On 03/06/2013 12:04 AM, David Milburn wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:48:32PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:26 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:04 PM, David Milburn <dmilburn@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
David Milburn wrote:
Export <global port>.<local port> format through /sys
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1/link1.1/dev1.1.0/ata_device
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1/link1.1/ata_link
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1/ata_port
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata1.1/ata_port/ata1.1
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2/link2.2/dev2.2.0/ata_device
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2/link2.2/ata_link
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2/ata_port
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata2.2/ata_port/ata2.2
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3/link3.3/dev3.3.0/ata_device
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3/link3.3/ata_link
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3/ata_port
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata3.3/ata_port/ata3.3
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4/link4.4/dev4.4.0/ata_device
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4/link4.4/ata_link
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4/ata_port
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata4.4/ata_port/ata4.4
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5/link5.5/dev5.5.0/ata_device
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5/link5.5/ata_link
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5/ata_port
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata5.5/ata_port/ata5.5
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6/link6.6/dev6.6.0/ata_device
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6/link6.6/ata_link
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6/ata_port
./pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata6.6/ata_port/ata6.6
Hmm.
Can't say I like the 'global port' notation.
Personally I would prefer to have a sysfs attribute for the local
port number, and have path_id get it from there.
For 95% of all cases the above is just an information duplication
(ie it'll only provide a real value for udev, but not for the user).
So, please, use a sysfs attribute for the local port and keep the
numbering as it is.
Hi Hannes,
Thanks for your feedback.
Would this patch be acceptable to everyone?
I would prefer having it named 'port_no' instead of 'local_port_no'.
Other than that the patch is exactly what I had in mind.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
