On Tue. 29 Nov. 2022 at 07:27, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:43:19 +0900 Vincent MAILHOL wrote: > > On Mon. 28 Nov. 2022 at 22:49, Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> 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. I like the "fw.bootloader" suggestion. A bootloader is technically still a firmware. I will send a separate patch to add the entry to devlink.h and only then send the v5.
