Messages in this thread | | | From | "Altobelli, David" <> | Date | Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:54:13 +0000 | Subject | RE: [PATCH] HP iLO driver |
| |
Michael Tokarev wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Altobelli, David wrote: >>>> Wouldn't /dev/hpilo/ccbN be a more appropriate namespace? >>> >>> Yes, that would be more clear. The code is currently defined to a >>> maximum of 1 hardware device, but this could change, and the dev >>> path should probably reflect that. >>> >>> How do you feel about /dev/hpiloX/ccbN, where X is 0, 1, ... >>> Num_Devices-1? >> >> I'd rather see /dev/hpilo/dXcY, the point being to try to declutter >> the /dev root. > > For a case when there will be only one, or, in very rare theoretical > case, two devices, why bother in the first place? A subdirectory > containing only one node is more ugly.. ;)
My notation might have confused you, but there will be several ccb nodes. The N will range from 0,...MAX_CCB-1, and MAX_CCB is currently defined as 8.
| |