Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] can: etas_es58x: export product information through devlink_ops::info_get()

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 14:27:23 -0800

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:43:19 +0900 Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> On Mon. 28 Nov. 2022 at 22:49, Andrew Lunn <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > devlink does not yet have a name suited for the bootloader and so this
> > > last piece of information is exposed to the userland for through a
> > > custom name: "bl".  
> >
> > Jiri, what do you think about 'bl'? Is it too short, not well known
> > enough? It could easily be 'bootloader'.  
> 
> For the record, I name it "bl" by analogy with the firmware which is
> named "fw". My personal preference would have been to name the fields
> without any abbreviations: "firmware", "bootloader" and
> "hardware.revision" (for reference ethtool -i uses
> "firmware-version"). But I tried to put my personal taste aside and
> try to fit with the devlink trends to abbreviate things. Thus the name
> "bl".

Agreed, I thought "fw" is sufficiently universally understood to be used
but "bl" is most definitely not :S  I'd suggest "fw.bootloader". Also
don't hesitate to add that to the "well known" list in devlink.h, 
I reckon it will be used by others sooner or later.