Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet card

From: "Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
	"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>
Cc: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	mark.rutland@arm.com, 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>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	john.garry@huawei.com, geert+renesas@glider.be,
	robin.murphy@arm.com,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
	sebastien.bourdelin@savoirfairelinux.com, icenowy@aosc.io,
	Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@gmail.com>,
	"J. Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	maxime.ripard@bootlin.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet card
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:00:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c1b783b0-9773-17f5-d043-35e28f7797f0@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <06024a8a-ad00-8062-215b-01b2f95a6e24@hartkopp.net>

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)