From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D06C10F11 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C5D2175B for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728361AbfDXLAO (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:00:14 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33890 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726122AbfDXLAN (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:00:13 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01297AD94; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:00:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet card To: Oliver Hartkopp , "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" Cc: Sven Van Asbroeck , Linus Walleij , Lee Jones , mark.rutland@arm.com, treding@nvidia.com, David Lechner , noralf@tronnes.org, johan@kernel.org, Michal Simek , michal.vokac@ysoft.com, Arnd Bergmann , Greg KH , john.garry@huawei.com, geert+renesas@glider.be, robin.murphy@arm.com, Paul Gortmaker , sebastien.bourdelin@savoirfairelinux.com, icenowy@aosc.io, Stuart Yoder , "J. Kiszka" , maxime.ripard@bootlin.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , netdev References: <20190409144250.7237-1-TheSven73@gmail.com> <982e69c6-4e68-6f62-8bed-cd5a1802272b@metux.net> <23a25601-ed98-5348-9bac-bf8fc2baea5e@metux.net> <7ceaeb70-f937-bd84-95e5-d7a6baeb5d87@metux.net> <06024a8a-ad00-8062-215b-01b2f95a6e24@hartkopp.net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=c3=a4rber?= Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Organization: SUSE Linux GmbH Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:00:09 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <06024a8a-ad00-8062-215b-01b2f95a6e24@hartkopp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 24.04.19 um 12:26 schrieb Oliver Hartkopp: > Thanks Enrico! > > On 24.04.19 11:40, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: >> On 18.04.19 19:34, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote: >> >>> If you have a fieldbus device you want to add to mainline Linux, and> >>> you wish to piggy-back onto the fieldbus_dev subsystem, then we can> >> discuss fieldbus API changes/additions/improvements during the> patch >> review stage. >> With those cases, piggy-backing wouldn't make much sense, as their >> semantics is pretty different. >> >> My whole point here was just that it shouldn't be called "fieldbus", >> but iec61158 instead. >> > > Full ACK! > > The Controller Area Network also belongs to the class of field busses > and has its own networking subsystem in linux/net/can. > > So using a 'class' of communication protocols as naming scheme doesn't > fit IMHO. And - again - NACK. Calling a subsystem just iec61158 is going to hide what it is and stand in the way of development of this niche system. I asked Enrico to come up with a better naming proposal such as having iec61158 as subfolder to human-readable fieldbus, but I did not see him coming up with any such new proposals apart from repeating this name. Also please read Sven's comment again: It you don't like the current naming you'll need to post follow-up patches, as v11 of this subsystem has been merged into staging. No complaint about piggy-backing on v10 is going to change that fact now! https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/tree/drivers/staging/fieldbus?h=staging-next And since we're at it, Enrico's response to me just threw around a bunch of acronyms instead of explaining which ones have an _actual_ conflict with this subsystem - my point precisely was that if they use sockets or ttys then there's no real conflict apart from lots of things classifying as "fieldbus". Regards, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)