From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 28 11:17:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA28991 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA28984 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:16:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA01727; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970428141540.00ba7100@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:15:48 -0400 To: John Hay From: dennis Subject: Re: pci probes with multiple "units" (MORE) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 05:16 PM 4/28/97 +0200, John Hay wrote: >> >> >> >>> A suggestion: >> >>> >> >>> When pci devices are probed, the O/S prints out something similar >> >>> to this: >> >>> >> >>> eth0 rev 0 int a irq 10 on pci0:17 >> >>> eth1 rev 0 int a irq 11 on pci0:18 >> >> >> >>Has ET Inc *really* called its synch serial card devices 'eth'? Isn't >> >>that a recipe for customer confusion? What are they called in Linux, >> >>where all ethernet cards are 'eth'? >> >> It would be nice if, for once, we didn't get sidetracked by trivial >> things and actually address the *problem* that I'm reporting, >> that is, the distinction between *adapter* number and device >> unit. >> > >Why don't you call your cards ethc0..X and then the devices eth0...X? >Something like the Arnet (ar(4)), SDL RISCom N2(pci) or Cronyx-Sigma >(cx(4)) drivers? We *could*, but its just a matter of symantics and there shouldnt be different methods for different cards when it could easily be done if a few folks get together on it. The separation of "controller" and "device" is getting a bit fogged because so many are making up their own standards. Its *easy* to do without the kludge you suggest...I call it a kludge because, unlike SCSI, there is no controller (as your nomenclature suggests) just multiple *devices* on a card. Since there is little or no distinction between 2 single port cards and a dual card, I would not only consider calling it a controller confusing but also explicitly wrong. To suggest that it be done that way because of a simple symantic problem in the pci probe code seems extreme. Dennis