Am 24.04.19 um 12:26 schrieb Oliver Hartkopp:
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.
And - again - NACK. Calling a subsystem just iec61158 is going to hide
what it is and stand in the way of development of this niche system. I
asked Enrico to come up with a better naming proposal such as having
iec61158 as subfolder to human-readable fieldbus, but I did not see him
coming up with any such new proposals apart from repeating this name.
Also please read Sven's comment again: It you don't like the current
naming you'll need to post follow-up patches, as v11 of this subsystem
has been merged into staging. No complaint about piggy-backing on v10 is
going to change that fact now!
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/tree/drivers/staging/fieldbus?h=staging-next
And since we're at it, Enrico's response to me just threw around a bunch
of acronyms instead of explaining which ones have an _actual_ conflict
with this subsystem - my point precisely was that if they use sockets or
ttys then there's no real conflict apart from lots of things classifying
as "fieldbus".