jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com (Jeff Garzik) wrote on 15.11.00 in <3A1319B8.6DF161EE@mandrakesoft.com>: > 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... Depends on how expensive it turns out to be. > 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)) { ... } That was one option I was thinking about. I don't know how many programs try to parse that, and if they could parse that right, though. That could be a hidden expense. MfG Kai - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
