> From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU>
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:08:19 +1100
>
> I think a standard naming scheme like sd_h0c0i0l0p2 will have to be
> enforced (i.e. no config option), and the old scheme available as a
> config option, and that's what I'll support. We need a simple,
> understandable standard that works for everybody. It may not satisfy
> everybody, but it will work.
>
> I agree that a single convention is a good idea. I personally would prefer to
> see "t" for Target ID rather than "i", since that's more common on other
> systems. I'd also rather avoid "l" for LUN (logical unit) since it is easily
> confused with the number one. How about "u" (for unit)? The above example
> would then become sd_h0c0t0u0p2. Using "u" also has the advantage that the
> letters chosen are all shorter than digits, making it easier to spot the
> pattern, even at a distance from the screen.
Agreed, that looks much better.... A varible naming scheme would be a
nightmare.. Let anyone brave enough just modify the source and deal with
the consiquences!
> One interesting problem with this scheme: with the current module system, host
> adapter numbers monotonically increase. Unloading a SCSI driver and reloading
> it will change the host number, thereby making any device names incorrect. I
> understand that some people actually do this unload/reload process and have
> certain devices only available when they actually need them.
Why dont we number Scsi cards in isa slots 0-3 (lowest memory address
first) (I guess vlb and eisa count as isa) and then number pci devices up
(first controler slot 1 slot 2 ... bridge slot 1 slot 2 ... bridge..
Second controler ....)..
Then when putting a card in a slot you would have a fare idea of where it
will be and adding another card to the system wont move things around..
>
> Leonard