Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181204220224.27324-1-TheSven73@googlemail.com>
 <20181204220224.27324-2-TheSven73@googlemail.com> <20181205101659.GA27058@kroah.com>
 <CAGngYiXXrrqGxTt339EP53tschLgZ82eRGvGifHQw6pg=C88+Q@mail.gmail.com> <20181205191724.GA434@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181205191724.GA434@kroah.com>
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 17:32:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGngYiWG74nDt1_hN0-bKCDRxm-f=N-Rnjtk02Vd7dgKtGRaBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] fieldbus_dev: add Fieldbus Device subsystem.
To:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@arcx.com>, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>,
        treding@nvidia.com, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>,
        noralf@tronnes.org, johan@kernel.org,
        Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>, michal.vokac@ysoft.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, john.garry@huawei.com,
        geert+renesas@glider.be, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        paul.gortmaker@windriver.com,
        sebastien.bourdelin@savoirfairelinux.com, icenowy@aosc.io,
        Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@gmail.com>, maxime.ripard@bootlin.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks :)

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:17 PM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Great, then call it a 'fieldbus' class, not "fieldbus_dev' class.

Small nit:

Hardware connected to a fieldbus comes in two distinct flavours:
- clients (e.g. thermometer, robotic arm) called "fieldbus devices"
- servers (e.g. a PLC) called "fieldbus controllers"

Their userspace APIs will probably differ quite a lot.

The userspace API created by the patch is only for clients a.k.a.
"fieldbus devices". That's why I'm writing 'fieldbus_dev' all over the place.

For simplicity, we could change that to just 'fieldbus'. But would this get
us in trouble when, at some point, we want to add a userspace API for
servers a.k.a. "fieldbus controllers" ?