Bart/Christoph,
> + */
> +int ufs_bsg_probe(struct ufs_hba *hba)
> +{
> + struct device *bsg_dev = &hba->bsg_dev;
> + struct Scsi_Host *shost = hba->host;
> + struct device *parent = &shost->shost_gendev;
> + struct request_queue *q;
> + int ret;
> +
> + device_initialize(bsg_dev);
> +
> + bsg_dev->parent = get_device(parent);
> + bsg_dev->release = ufs_bsg_node_release;
> +
> + dev_set_name(bsg_dev, "ufs-bsg");
In V6, we removed the host and device indices from the bsg device name,
But I have some seconds thoughts about it.
We are using the bsg device in passthrough mode (bsg_transport_ops),
But the device name: "ufs-bsg" does not imply that.
Given that the ABI should never change,
if someone in the future will want to add a bsg device that uses the bsg_scsi_ops,
ufs-bsg-scsi seems a little bit awkward, does it?
What do you think?
Thanks,
Avri
> +
> + ret = device_add(bsg_dev);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> +
> + q = bsg_setup_queue(bsg_dev, dev_name(bsg_dev), ufs_bsg_request,
> 0);
