linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-designware-pci: Index Haswell ULT bus names from 0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131021065804.GX3521@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:04 +0300
From:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>
Cc:	wsa@...-dreams.de, khali@...ux-fr.org,
	andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, jacmet@...site.dk,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dlaurie@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-designware-pci: Index Haswell ULT bus names from
 0

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:26:50PM -0700, Benson Leung wrote:
> Rather than having the bus names be "i2c-designware-pci--1" because
> we have set the .bus_num to -1 to force dynamic allocation, lets have
> the busses named "i2c-designware-pci-0" and "i2c-designware-pci-1"
> to correspond to the correct names of these busses.
> 
> The adapter number will still be dynamically assigned.

Is there any real value in having names like "i2c-designware-pci-0"
available? I would just drop the whole naming dance instead...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/