bootstd: Fix a handful of doc typos in bootmeth

Fix some trivial typos found by browsing the code.
Done with flyspell.

Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com>
---
 include/bootmeth.h | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)


---
base-commit: ea722aa5eb33740ae77e8816aeb72b385e621cd0
change-id: 20240603-bootmeth-typos-47c865e70ccf

Best regards,

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@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?

>    *
> @@ -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

Cheers,
Quentin

Hi Quentin,

On mar., juin 04, 2024 at 11:47, Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@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@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

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.

>
> Cheers,
> Quentin

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@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@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@cherry.de>

Thanks,
Quentin

Hi Quentin,

Thanks for the review!

On mar., juin 04, 2024 at 14:22, Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de> wrote:

> Hi Mattijs,
>
> On 6/4/24 2:04 PM, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:

[...]

>> 
>> 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.

Ah, thank you for the link, that is helpful.

I've done the global rename, made this into a series here:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240604-bootmeth-typos-v2-0-821683a95aaf@baylibre.com

>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
>
> Thanks,
> Quentin