On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:32 PM Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:17 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Great, then call it a 'fieldbus' class, not "fieldbus_dev' class.
>
> Small nit:
>
> Hardware connected to a fieldbus comes in two distinct flavours:
> - clients (e.g. thermometer, robotic arm) called "fieldbus devices"
> - servers (e.g. a PLC) called "fieldbus controllers"
>
> Their userspace APIs will probably differ quite a lot.
>
> The userspace API created by the patch is only for clients a.k.a.
> "fieldbus devices". That's why I'm writing 'fieldbus_dev' all over the place.
>
> For simplicity, we could change that to just 'fieldbus'. But would this get
> us in trouble when, at some point, we want to add a userspace API for
> servers a.k.a. "fieldbus controllers" ?
In the long run, would you expect to support more devices or more
controllers that need a distinct driver? Whichever we have more of should
probably get the shorter name.
Arnd
