linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] fpga: dfl: create a dfl bus type to support DFL devices

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: <20200721144418.GB20733@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 22:44:18 +0800
From:   Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>
To:     "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>
Cc:     "mdf@...nel.org" <mdf@...nel.org>,
        "linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "trix@...hat.com" <trix@...hat.com>,
        "lgoncalv@...hat.com" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Weight, Russell H" <russell.h.weight@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fpga: dfl: create a dfl bus type to support DFL
   devices

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:41:27PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote:
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +dfl_dev->type = feature_dev_id_type(pdev);
> > > > +dfl_dev->feature_id = (unsigned long long)feature->id;
> > > > +
> > > > +dfl_dev->dev.parent  = &pdev->dev;
> > > > +dfl_dev->dev.bus     = &dfl_bus_type;
> > > > +dfl_dev->dev.release = release_dfl_dev;
> > > > +dev_set_name(&dfl_dev->dev, "%s.%d", dev_name(&pdev->dev),
> > > > +     feature->index);
> > >
> > > Or it's better to have a generic name for the device on the bus.
> >
> > mm.. It is good suggestion, we should have a unified name for dfl
> > devices.
> >
> > How about ("dfl.%d.%d", pdev->id, feature->index)
> 
> It's quite difficult for people to use related information from these magic
> numbers. They are not ids defined in the spec, so just dfl_dev.x with one
> unique id seems to be better. If you really need to expose some id
> information, maybe you can consider adding some standard sysfs entry
> to all dfl_dev, I think that will be easier for users. How do you think?

I'm fine with the dfl_dev.x solution.

> 
> Thanks
> Hao