Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221104073659.414147-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
 <20221126162211.93322-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> <20221126162211.93322-4-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
 <Y4S73jX07uFAwVQv@lunn.ch>
In-Reply-To: <Y4S73jX07uFAwVQv@lunn.ch>
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:43:19 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMZ6RqKYyLCCxQKSnOxku2u9604Uxmxw3xG9d031-2=9iC_8tw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] can: etas_es58x: export product information
 through devlink_ops::info_get()
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     linux-can@vger.kernel.org, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>,
        Lukas Magel <lukas.magel@posteo.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon. 28 Nov. 2022 at 22:49, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > devlink does not yet have a name suited for the bootloader and so this
> > last piece of information is exposed to the userland for through a
> > custom name: "bl".
>
> Jiri, what do you think about 'bl'? Is it too short, not well known
> enough? It could easily be 'bootloader'.

For the record, I name it "bl" by analogy with the firmware which is
named "fw". My personal preference would have been to name the fields
without any abbreviations: "firmware", "bootloader" and
"hardware.revision" (for reference ethtool -i uses
"firmware-version"). But I tried to put my personal taste aside and
try to fit with the devlink trends to abbreviate things. Thus the name
"bl".


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol