[PATCH v2 2/2] bootstd: Replace bootmethod(s) -> bootmeth(s)

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi all,

On 6/17/24 8:31 AM, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
> 
> Thank you for your review.
> 
> On dim., juin 16, 2024 at 09:38, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/4/24 17:15, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
>>> According to [1], we should use bootmeth when describing the
>>> struct bootmeth:
>>>
>>> """
>>> 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
>>
>> Boot devices are udevices though they don't relate to hardware but to an
>> abstract concept.
>>
>> bootdev is just an abbreviation. This does not make the meaning any clearer.
> 
> Per my understanding, the name for this concept is "bootdev", not
> "boot device", see:
> 
> https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/bootstd.html#introduction
> 
>>
>>>       - bootmeth - because 'method' is too vanilla, appears 1300 times in
>>>           U-Boot
>>> """
>>
>> Avoiding abbreviations like bootdev and bootmeth improved readability.
> 
> The above paragraph is quoted from email [1].
> In this email, Simon made the choice to use bootmeth and bootdev
> when pushing the initial implementation.
> 
> This patch just corrects the places where the older terminology
> (bootmethod, bootdevice) was still used.
> 

The current wording is just incorrect, so it needs to be fixed. We have 
two choices: use the struct/abbreviated name (bootdevice -> bootdev; 
bootmethod -> bootmeth) or the full name (bootdevice -> boot device; 
bootmethod -> boot method).

Heinrich are you suggesting we go for full name instead?

board/sandbox/sandbox.env should be using bootmeth instead as that's the 
name of the feature?

Cheers,
Quentin