Re: [PATCH] 2.5.14 IDE 56

[Mike Fedyk]

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 07:30:34PM +0200, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 7 May 2002 [e-mail] wrote:
> >>
> >> One interesting thing here would be to have some optional link between
> >> the bus-oriented device tree and the function-oriented tree (ie. devfs
> >> or simply /dev).
> >
> >There isn't any 1:1 thing - the device/bus-oriented one should _not_ show
> >virtual things like partitions etc that have no relevance for a driver,
> >while /dev (and thus devfs) obviously think that that is the important
> >part, much more important than how we actually got to the device.
> >
> >I think we need to have some way of getting a mapping from /dev ->
> >devicefs, but I don't think that has to be a filesystem thing (it might
> >even be as simple as just one ioctl or new system call: 'get the "path" of
> >this device').
> >
> >There aren't that many people who actually care, I suspect.
> 
> Sure, It's obviously not 1:1, what I had in mind was for the controller
> to show what devices it exports in the sense of raw devices, but I agree
> the other way makes a lot more sense. My problem was how to be devfs
> agnostic, but you answered with "ioctl or syscall" and that would indeed
> be ok. The ioctl things make it appliable to network interfaces as well,
> which is good.

Yes, when will we get something that associates the physical device with
network ethX name?