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

[Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com>]

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