On Tue, 2025-05-06 at 15:27 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > It might be better to use something like "ibm,plpks-sb-static" in > > place > > of "ibm,plpks-sb-v0" to make it instantly clear that static mode > > doesn't use the same version numbering scheme as dynamic mode. > > Yes, "ibm,plpks-sb-static" is more clear compared to "ibm,plpks-sb- > v0". > However, I am not sure why "static mode doesn't use the same version > numbering scheme as dynamic mode". Infact, as per my understanding, > it > is part of same versioning system. "0 represent static, 1 represent > dynamic and anything beyond 1 would mean dynamic with additional > features". > > Also, wouldn't having "ibm,pkpks-sb-static" and then "ibm,pkpk-sb-v1" > for dynamic would be bit confusing? I mean being static is clear, but > what they relate v1 to? Or did you mean to have "ibm,plpks-sb-static" > and "ibm,plpks-sb-dynamic" for the two modes? >
I don't feel strongly about this, as long as it's well documented. -- Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra a...@linux.ibm.com IBM Australia Limited
