On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:44:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> I was concerned about the _next_ device (the one that will be created > >> the moment I plug in the tablet back into the same port) having exact > >> same name as the one that is half dead and clashing in sysfs and > >> elsewhere. We used to have issues with this. > > > > Ok, that's certainly a valid concern. > > > > It's still - I think - really sad/wrong that the device name is then > > so useless than the drivers end up basically not using it. > > Ok, so I wonder if we could solve the issue at least partly by > separating the "print name for kernel messages" from the "name used > for /sysfs etc". > > Because you're right: the sysfs uniqueness rules does make it very > hard to do a good job on descriptive names. > > Also, in sysfs, you by definition see the parent (hey, it's part of > the path), so in sysfs, duplicating parent data would be useless and > just ugly. > > But for dev_dbg(), those sysfs rules actually act against us: the name > of a device is often tied to the parent bus location. > > So I wonder if we could teach dev_printk() to use something more > interesting than "dev_name()" when appropriate? Greg? I'm open to ideas on what to change it to. A full sysfs path? Something more "unique"? I don't know what works for everything here. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
