Hi Heinrich,
On 6/17/24 11:24 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 17.06.24 11:00, Quentin Schulz wrote:
Hi all,
On 6/17/24 8:31 AM, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
Thank you for your review.
On dim., juin 16, 2024 at 09:38, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 6/4/24 17:15, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
According to [1], we should use bootmeth when describing the struct bootmeth:
""" For version 2, a new naming scheme is used as above:
- bootdev is used instead of bootdevice, because 'device' is overused, is everywhere in U-Boot, can be confused with udevice
Boot devices are udevices though they don't relate to hardware but to an abstract concept.
bootdev is just an abbreviation. This does not make the meaning any clearer.
Per my understanding, the name for this concept is "bootdev", not "boot device", see:
https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/bootstd.html#introduction
- bootmeth - because 'method' is too vanilla, appears 1300 times in U-Boot """
Avoiding abbreviations like bootdev and bootmeth improved readability.
The above paragraph is quoted from email [1]. In this email, Simon made the choice to use bootmeth and bootdev when pushing the initial implementation.
This patch just corrects the places where the older terminology (bootmethod, bootdevice) was still used.
The current wording is just incorrect, so it needs to be fixed. We have two choices: use the struct/abbreviated name (bootdevice -> bootdev; bootmethod -> bootmeth) or the full name (bootdevice -> boot device; bootmethod -> boot method).
The English languages has three types of compound words: solid, hyphenated, open. bootmethod, boot-method, boot method all mean the same.
According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq-compound-words: "Compound nouns are usually written as one word."
See also "U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual", chapter 6, "COMPOUNDING RULES", https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2000/pdf/GPO-STYLEMANUAL...
We should avoid unnecessary abbreviations.
It's too late, the abbreviations are used in code already.
For documentation: https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/search.html?q=bootmethod&check_keyword...
bootmethod returns no match.
https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/bootstd.html#bootmeth https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/expo.html#motivation https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/usage/cmd/bootflow.html#bootflow-list use "boot method"
all other instances are of bootmeth/bootmeths instead. A little consistency here wouldn't hurt. I don't think the current wording is consistent. I am non-native, if I read bootmethod, I assume it is used with this wording in the code, but it actually isn't, it's called bootmeth. If I read "boot method" I understand a way of booting, and I will likely not grep in the source code to find how that works.
If it's a NACK, please say so. Otherwise please provide clear instructions so we know the wording we should be using for this to be accepted.
Cheers, Quentin