netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] NE2000

To: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] NE2000
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 21:54:17 -0700
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Gortmaker <p_gortmaker@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Candela Technologies
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10011021935530.11540-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Donald Becker wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > On a related note, there are a handful of drivers that register ioports
> > > (and IRQ) with the name dev->name (e.g. eth0) as opposed to a more
> > > meaningful model name (e.g. "3c503/16"). And some drivers do one for
> ...
> > For ISA, it's more informative.  For PCI, it's less informative because
> > the requested resource appears in /proc/ioports underneath the parent
> > PCI device.
> 
> Using dev->name is much more meaningful.
> I switched over all of my drivers to use dev->name a few years ago.

I noticed while writing some hashed device lookup-by-name code that
names can be changed at run time.  Would that affect the decision
any?

-- 
Ben Greear (greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)  http://www.candelatech.com
Author of ScryMUD:  scry.wanfear.com 4444        (Released under GPL)
http://scry.wanfear.com               http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>