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.g...@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).
Heinrich are you suggesting we go for full name instead?
board/sandbox/sandbox.env should be using bootmeth instead as that's the
name of the feature?
Cheers,
Quentin
