<serious replies only, I don't want flames for asking a question>
Why bother seperating it out by interface? I'm just asking. It seems it
would be better to go by controller/bus/id/lun[/partition] for all devices
that connect to scsi, ide, usb, pcmcia, parport, etc. It could get ugly
having all of them in the same machine, or we could do it with the device
name beginning with h for ide (like it is now actually), p for parport,
(pcmcia is just another bus like isa/pci to me so I feel it's irrelevent), s
for scsi, u for usb. say: u0b0i0l0 is id 0 on first bus on first usb
controller.. Obviously, I don't know if usb has more than 1 bus per
controller, I know scsi does (used to have a dual channel adaptec eisa at
one time)
> It is the right way. The concept is still valid. Just extend my
> example code. It wasn't meant to be complete, just enough to convey
> the idea. Did I really have to spell that out?
>
> Also, I expect that a PCMCIA CD-ROM will really be an IDE CD-ROM. A
> parport CD-ROM will probably be either IDE or SCSI.
My thoughts exactly... Maybe just drop the p on the above then =) Aren't
most parport devices either proprietary or ide anyway?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/