netdev - Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet card

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <06024a8a-ad00-8062-215b-01b2f95a6e24@hartkopp.net>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:26:24 +0200
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
        Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        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

Thanks Enrico!

On 24.04.19 11:40, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 18.04.19 19:34, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> 
>> If you have a fieldbus device you want to add to mainline Linux, and> you wish to piggy-back onto the fieldbus_dev subsystem, then we can>
> discuss fieldbus API changes/additions/improvements during the> patch
> review stage.
> With those cases, piggy-backing wouldn't make much sense, as their
> semantics is pretty different.
> 
> My whole point here was just that it shouldn't be called "fieldbus",
> but iec61158 instead.
> 

Full ACK!

The Controller Area Network also belongs to the class of field busses 
and has its own networking subsystem in linux/net/can.

So using a 'class' of communication protocols as naming scheme doesn't 
fit IMHO.

Best regards,
Oliver