Kai Henningsen wrote: > > p_gortmaker@yahoo.com (Paul Gortmaker) wrote on 06.11.00 in <3A06F281.73D6AF2@yahoo.com>: > > > Ok - I still think consistency is a worthwhile goal. So I guess we > > (in 2.5.x) will have to extend the scope of settling on the device name > > outside of drivers/net (assuming nobody else has sufficient reasons to > > stick with model names instead). > > As long as we're talking 2.5, think about a way we could either have both, > or else have a device name -> model name lookup table somewhere in /proc. Is model name useful enough to warrant a completely new feature just for model names? I'm not so sure... If you -really- want to see both, then just print out both in /proc/ioports: > struct foo_private *fp = (struct foo_private *) dev->priv; > sprintf(fp->name, "%s: %s", dev->name, model_name); > if (!request_region(ioaddr, iosize, fp->name)) { ... } We can do that with existing code, no need for new features... Jeff -- Jeff Garzik | Building 1024 | The chief enemy of creativity is "good" sense MandrakeSoft | -- Picasso - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
