
Hi Quentin,
On mar., juin 04, 2024 at 11:47, Quentin Schulz quentin.schulz@cherry.de wrote:
Hi Mattijs,
On 6/3/24 11:11 AM, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
Fix some trivial typos found by browsing the code. Done with flyspell.
Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek mkorpershoek@baylibre.com > --- include/bootmeth.h | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/bootmeth.h b/include/bootmeth.h index 0fc36104ece0..529c4d813d82 100644 --- a/include/bootmeth.h +++ b/include/bootmeth.h @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ struct bootmeth_ops { /** * get_state_desc() - get detailed state information *
* Prodecues a textual description of the state of the bootmeth. This
* Produces a textual description of the state of the bootmeth. This
- can include newline characters if it extends to multiple lines. It
- must be a nul-terminated string.
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ struct bootmeth_ops { * @dev: Bootmethod device to boot * @bflow: Bootflow to boot * Return: does not return on success, since it should boot the
* Operating Systemn. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, -ENOTSUPP if
* Operating System. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, -ENOTSUPP if
- trying method resulted in finding out that is not actually
- supported for this boot and should not be tried again unless
- something changes, other -ve on other error
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ struct bootmeth_ops { /**
- bootmeth_get_state_desc() - get detailed state information
- Prodecues a textual description of the state of the bootmeth. This
- Produces a textual description of the state of the bootmeth. This
- can include newline characters if it extends to multiple lines. It
- must be a nul-terminated string.
I see we have a mix of null-terminated and nul-terminated in the tree, is the latter correct?
Thank you for your review.
I believe nul-terminated is correct: nul is the character, and null is the pointer.
See: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22283217 - https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/null-consistency/16767
I'll check the tree and submit another patch to fix this.
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int bootmeth_read_file(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow,
- @dev: Bootmethod device to use
- @bflow: Bootflow to read
- Return: does not return on success, since it should boot the
- Operating Systemn. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, other -ve on
*/ int bootmeth_read_all(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow);
- Operating System. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, other -ve on
- other error
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ int bootmeth_read_all(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow);
- @dev: Bootmethod device to boot
- @bflow: Bootflow to boot
- Return: does not return on success, since it should boot the
- Operating Systemn. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, other -ve on
*/ int bootmeth_boot(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow);
- Operating System. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, other -ve on
- other error
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ int bootmeth_boot(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow);
- bootmeth_setup_iter_order() - Set up the ordering of bootmeths to scan
- This sets up the ordering information in @iter, based on the selected
- ordering of the bootmethds in bootstd_priv->bootmeth_order. If there is no
- ordering of the bootmeths in bootstd_priv->bootmeth_order. If there is no
- ordering there, then all bootmethods are added
Shouldn't this be bootmeths here as well?
(And there's another occurrence in boot/bootmeth-uclass.c
There seems indeed to be some inconsistencies around bootmeths versus bootmethods.
To me, we should use 'bootmeth' everywhere.
Simon, as the maintainer of bootflow, do you agree ?
I can spin up another patch to fix this.
Cheers, Quentin