lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:54:30 +0200 From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net> To: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>, Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> Cc: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, mark.rutland@....com, treding@...dia.com, David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>, noralf@...nnes.org, johan@...nel.org, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, michal.vokac@...ft.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, john.garry@...wei.com, geert+renesas@...der.be, robin.murphy@....com, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>, sebastien.bourdelin@...oirfairelinux.com, icenowy@...c.io, Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@...il.com>, "J. Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>, maxime.ripard@...tlin.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet card On 24.04.19 17:10, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote: > The subsystem is called fieldbus_dev "fieldbus device" because it> abstracts Linux fieldbus clients that want to expose themselves as> e.g. an actuator, motor, console light, switch, ... Sounds a bit confusing. With that description, I'd expect highlevel interfaces similar to LED, input, IIO, etc ... but you're actually implementing an distributed process memory system. This in turn is just a subset of the fieldbus world. > During one of the eleven review cycles, drivers/fieldbus_dev got> truncated to drivers/fieldbus because the reviewers felt that> _dev was redundant, given the lack of other fieldbus> subsystems. There is at least one: CAN. Sometimes CAN is used in the IEC61158-way, but also completely different, even both in combination. > These cards are not controllers, but slaves on the bus. Do they really implement the process memory part or just the lower layer communications ? > I'm by no means a fieldbus expert. It seems that the term> 'fieldbus' is much broader than these process-memory based> standards? Yes, indeed. > I am open to any _concrete_ naming suggestion > that can get consensus. Maybe IEC61158 ? > I'm a bit confused by Wikipedia's entry for fieldbus. > It suggests that IEC 61158 and Fieldbus are > interchangeable? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieldbus That's wrong. > <quote> > Fieldbus is the name of a family of industrial computer > network protocols used for real-time distributed control, > standardized as IEC 61158. > </quote> IEC 61158 only standardizes one particular approach: the distributed process memory. > Given that CAN/EtherCAT are not process memory based > (that I know of), the fieldbus_dev subsystem is probably > not a good fit. ACK. Neither are MVB+friends. --mtx -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Powered by blists - more mailing lists