-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.3k
RFC: doc: glossary: Consolidate "software component" as a term #100118
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -23,11 +23,11 @@ The Zephyr kernel supports multiple architectures, including: | |
|
|
||
| The full list of supported boards based on these architectures can be found :ref:`here <boards>`. | ||
|
|
||
| In the context of the Zephyr OS, a :term:`subsystem` refers to a logically distinct | ||
| In the context of the Zephyr OS, a :term:`software component` refers to a logically distinct | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. thank you for taking care of this, I think a review of terminology used and making things less confusing in our docs and codebase is long overdue, however, we should try to have a deep review and fix this once and for all and take any major actions needed (renaming stuff) in one single step. few comments.
|
||
| part of the operating system that handles specific functionality or provides | ||
| certain services. Subsystems can include components such as networking, | ||
| certain services. Zephyr contains software components such as networking, | ||
| file systems, device driver classes, power management, and communication protocols, | ||
| among others. Each subsystem is designed to be modular and can be configured, | ||
| among others. Each software component is designed to be modular and can be configured, | ||
| customized, and extended to meet the requirements of different embedded | ||
| applications. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ Zephyr offers a large and ever growing number of features including: | |
|
|
||
| **Native port** | ||
| :zephyr:board:`Native sim <native_sim>` allows running Zephyr as a Linux application with support | ||
| for various subsystems and networking. | ||
| for most components, including networking. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| .. include:: ../../README.rst | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
would mean that
archis not part of the kernel, which sounds wrong?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! That is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to have here. I am very much OK with arch being part of the kernel component, so I am completely fine with removing the hardware-agnostic part and even specifically mentioning the arch part as part of the kernel.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be clear, I have no issues with
hardware-agnostic coreby itself; however, if we keep it (and ifarchis indeed considered part of the kernel!), thenarchshould be explicitly mentioned as also being part of the "kernel" software component in addition to the HW-agnostic code, e.g. roughly:Another wording (without the
hardware-agnosticpart) is possible too, but IMO your proposal is fine except for this tiny detail.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @mathieuchopstm! I will wait for more feedback from others before I make any changes. Your proposed change is fine with me.