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
