On Feb 8, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Pavel Cahyna wrote:

> Also, your format for <further-info> is unfortunately inconsistent.
> The attribute names are different from the config(9) syntax. Returning 
> to
> your example:
>
> attach uhub0 at usb0 port 0 config -1 iface -1 vendor 8086 product 0000
>
> but usb(4) says:
>
> uhub*   at uhub? port ? configuration ? interface ? vendor ? product ?
>            release ?
>
> (look at the difference: config vs configuration and iface vs 
> interface.)
> If text-form is finally approved, could this be made consistent, 
> please?

I agree that text-form should be used, and that the bus's locnames 
should be used whenever possible.  Obviously, PNP info does not always 
have a locname (USB might be the only one that does?)

-- thorpej