-----Original Message----- From: Williams, Dan J dan.j.williams@intel.com Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:46 PM To: Ertman, David M david.m.ertman@intel.com; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com; parav@nvidia.com; broonie@kernel.org; jgg@nvidia.com; Sridharan, Ranjani ranjani.sridharan@intel.com; alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; tiwai@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Ancillary bus implementation and SOF multi-client support
[ Ugh, as other have lameneted, I was not copied on this thread so I could not respond in real time. Let me be another to say, please copy all impacted lists and stakeholders on patches. ]
On Sat, 2020-10-03 at 11:08 +0200, Greg KH wrote: [..]
Several names were suggested (like peer bus, which was shot down because in parts on the English speaking world the peerage means nobility), finally "ancillary bus" was arrived at by consensus of not hating it.
"not hating it", while sometimes is a good thing, for something that I am going to have to tell everyone to go use, I would like to at least "like it". And right now I don't like it...
I think we should go back to "virtual" for now, or, if the people who didn't like it on your "internal" reviews wish to participate here and defend their choice, I would be glad to listen to that reasoning.
I came out strongly against "virtual" because there is nothing virtual about these devices, they are functional partitions of the parent device. Also, /sys/devices/virtual is already the land of unparented / software-defined devices. Having /sys/devices/virtual alongside that is not quite a namespace collision, but it's certainly namespace confusion in my view.
I proposed other names, the team came back with "ancillary" which was not my first choice, but perfectly suitable. In deference to the people doing the work I let their choice stand.
It is an uncomfortable position being a middle tier reviewer of pre- release patch sets when the patch set can still be de-railed by preference nits. A lack of deference makes it a difficult job to convince people "hey my internal review will save you some time upstream", when in practice they can see the opposite is true.
I have to admit that I am biased towards the virtual bus (or virtbus) name as that is what I was using during the original implementation of this code.
That being said, I can also understand Dan's objection to the name.
At first, I didn't object to Parav's suggestion of subdev bus, but the more I think of it, I don't want to have to describe to someone how to use a subdev device's sub device element (yikes, what a mouthful!).
At this point, I just want a name that is easy to understand and doesn't generate a lot of confusion or tongue twisting alliteration.
Can we call it the super_useful bus? (j/k 😊 ).
Some possible names: aggregate (useable across subsystems) gob (bunch group or block - kinda reminds me of git) collect (brings together drivers from different subsystems) flock heap sect (splinter group) not_platform 😉
Any of these interest anybody?