[PATCH] bootstd: Fix a handful of doc typos in bootmeth

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Mattijs,

On 6/4/24 2:04 PM, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
> 
> On mar., juin 04, 2024 at 11:47, Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at cherry.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mattijs,
>>
>> On 6/3/24 11:11 AM, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
>>> Fix some trivial typos found by browsing the code.
>>> Done with flyspell.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek at baylibre.com> > ---
>>>    include/bootmeth.h | 12 ++++++------
>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/bootmeth.h b/include/bootmeth.h
>>> index 0fc36104ece0..529c4d813d82 100644
>>> --- a/include/bootmeth.h
>>> +++ b/include/bootmeth.h
>>> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ struct bootmeth_ops {
>>>    	/**
>>>    	 * get_state_desc() - get detailed state information
>>>    	 *
>>> -	 * Prodecues a textual description of the state of the bootmeth. This
>>> +	 * Produces a textual description of the state of the bootmeth. This
>>>    	 * can include newline characters if it extends to multiple lines. It
>>>    	 * must be a nul-terminated string.
>>>    	 *
>>> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ struct bootmeth_ops {
>>>    	 * @dev:	Bootmethod device to boot
>>>    	 * @bflow:	Bootflow to boot
>>>    	 * Return: does not return on success, since it should boot the
>>> -	 *	Operating Systemn. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, -ENOTSUPP if
>>> +	 *	Operating System. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, -ENOTSUPP if
>>>    	 *	trying method resulted in finding out that is not actually
>>>    	 *	supported for this boot and should not be tried again unless
>>>    	 *	something changes, other -ve on other error
>>> @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ struct bootmeth_ops {
>>>    /**
>>>     * bootmeth_get_state_desc() - get detailed state information
>>>     *
>>> - * Prodecues a textual description of the state of the bootmeth. This
>>> + * Produces a textual description of the state of the bootmeth. This
>>>     * can include newline characters if it extends to multiple lines. It
>>>     * must be a nul-terminated string.
>>
>> I see we have a mix of null-terminated and nul-terminated in the tree,
>> is the latter correct?
> 
> Thank you for your review.
> 
> I believe nul-terminated is correct: nul is the character, and null is the pointer.
> 
> See:
> - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22283217
> - https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/null-consistency/16767
> 

Ah, thanks for the pointers, makes much more sense to me now :)

> I'll check the tree and submit another patch to fix this.
> 
>>
>>>     *
>>> @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int bootmeth_read_file(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow,
>>>     * @dev:	Bootmethod device to use
>>>     * @bflow:	Bootflow to read
>>>     * Return: does not return on success, since it should boot the
>>> - *	Operating Systemn. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, other -ve on
>>> + *	Operating System. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, other -ve on
>>>     *	other error
>>>     */
>>>    int bootmeth_read_all(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow);
>>> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ int bootmeth_read_all(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow);
>>>     * @dev:	Bootmethod device to boot
>>>     * @bflow:	Bootflow to boot
>>>     * Return: does not return on success, since it should boot the
>>> - *	Operating Systemn. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, other -ve on
>>> + *	Operating System. Returns -EFAULT if that fails, other -ve on
>>>     *	other error
>>>     */
>>>    int bootmeth_boot(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow);
>>> @@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ int bootmeth_boot(struct udevice *dev, struct bootflow *bflow);
>>>     * bootmeth_setup_iter_order() - Set up the ordering of bootmeths to scan
>>>     *
>>>     * This sets up the ordering information in @iter, based on the selected
>>> - * ordering of the bootmethds in bootstd_priv->bootmeth_order. If there is no
>>> + * ordering of the bootmeths in bootstd_priv->bootmeth_order. If there is no
>>>     * ordering there, then all bootmethods are added
>>>     *
>>
>> Shouldn't this be bootmeths here as well?
>>
>> (And there's another occurrence in boot/bootmeth-uclass.c
> 
> There seems indeed to be some inconsistencies around bootmeths versus
> bootmethods.
> 
> To me, we should use 'bootmeth' everywhere.
> 
> Simon, as the maintainer of bootflow, do you agree ?
> 
> I can spin up another patch to fix this.
> 

c.f. https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20211023232635.9195-1-sjg@chromium.org/

"""
For version 2, a new naming scheme is used as above:

    - bootdev is used instead of bootdevice, because 'device' is overused,
        is everywhere in U-Boot, can be confused with udevice
    - bootmeth - because 'method' is too vanilla, appears 1300 times in
        U-Boot
"""

SO I think we should change it to bootmeth(s) indeed.

Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at cherry.de>

Thanks,
Quentin