Re: [PATCH v11 2/7] anybus-s: support HMS Anybus-S bus

[Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult]

On 18.04.19 19:44, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:

> At this point we don't know yet where the API might possibly go.
> It might evolve into something broader that includes IEC61158 as
> just one aspect.

I doubt that, because:

* All the devices (at least those I've seen somewhere) that follow
  semantics similar to IEC61158, are actually IEC61158. (maybe not
  everybody fully spec compatible or some dialects). Because that's
  exactly the industry standard for anything that works on that shared
  process memory model.
* the other fieldbus'es I've mentioned have completely different
  semantics and just fit in here.

Therefore: we should call things exactly what they are. We don't call
grapefruits apples, even though both are round and tend to contain a
lot of sugar.

> If and when we mature and get more users/stakeholders, we can then
> look at changing to more specific naming. Definitely before coming out
> of staging/.

I don't like the idea of name changing *after* this went to mainline
and people are actually using it. At that point, people might even
already written their own drivers, so they'd have to change them, too.

Please let's do that ASAP. It doesn't cost us much at this stage.

> Greg KH has accepted the v11 patch set, so at this stage we can make
> changes only by circulating patches on the mailing list. 

@Greg: is that already in your tree ? What do you think about doing
the name change now ?

> Would you like me to post patches for anybus-s documentation / making the
> regulator optional? Or would you like to have a go at that yourself?

If your patches haven't been taken by in Grek yet, it IMHO would be good
to rework the queue w/ the missing pieces (-> v12). Otherwise separate
patches ontop of the already applied queue probably would be better.


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@xxxxxxxxx -- +49-151-27565287