On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 02:17:02AM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote: > On 2013/3/29 1:59, Greg KH wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:11:04AM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote: > >>Usb port isn't assigned to any bus_type. This seems not good from > >>Greg's comments. > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=136200364929942&w=2 > >> > >>This patch is to register usb port to usb_bus_type. The usb port's > >>original name is "portX". This will cause name confilct after adding > >>usb port to usb_bus_type since the usb ports with same port num under > >>different hub have the same name. So change the usb port's name format > >>to "port + (hub dev name) + '.' + (port num)" for non-root hub and > >>"port + (usb bus num) + '-' + (port num)" for root hub. > >> > >>ls /sys/bus/usb/devices > >>1-0:1.0 2-0:1.0 port1-1 port1-1.3 port2-1.2 port2-2 port4-3 > >>1-1 2-1 port1-1.1 port1-1.4 port2-1.3 port3-1 port4-4 > >>1-1.1 2-1:1.0 port1-1.2 port1-1.5 port2-1.4 port3-2 usb1 > >>1-1:1.0 3-0:1.0 port1-1.2.1 port1-1.6 port2-1.5 port3-3 usb2 > >>1-1.1:1.0 3-1 port1-1.2.2 port1-2 port2-1.6 port3-4 usb3 > >>1-1.2 3-1:1.0 port1-1.2.3 port2-1 port2-1.7 port4-1 usb4 > >>1-1.2:1.0 4-0:1.0 port1-1.2.4 port2-1.1 port2-1.8 port4-2 > > > >What does it look like if you reverse the naming scheme (hub dev name + > >"port")? Doesn't that show the devices in a bit more logical way? > Hi Greg: > Do you mean e.g "port1.2-1", originally it's "port2-1.1". > 2-1 is hub dev name? No, I mean "2-1.port1" as these are the ports on the device, the device prefix should go first, right? > If right, how about root hub port and it should be port2.usb1? "usb1.port2" -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
