On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:53:38AM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
>
> 在 2023/5/25 16:12, lihuisong (C) 写道:
> >
> > 在 2023/5/25 15:35, Sudeep Holla 写道:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:41:51AM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote:
> > > > Hi Sudeep,
> > > >
> > > > Here, the interface is used to determine whether a port is in use or
> > > > enabled.
> > > > If we just use 'status', it cannot inidicates its own meaning by name.
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > How about "port_status" or "port-status" ?
> > The meaning of this status is a little board.
> > How about 'enable'? just a read-only entry.
> >
> >
> "using_status" --> "enable" ? What do you think?
> Its original purpose was to determine whether a port is in use or enabled.
>
That's fine. The main point I was trying to make is plain "status" or
"using_status" is prone to conflict as you have ports, lanes, ...etc.
Adding "port_" to the name whatever you choose is better.
--
Regards,
Sudeep