linux-kernel - w1: coding-style - naming for master/slave for new driver and dt binding

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <91104ef7-c9a6-4c65-aad0-61ecb3c29ea0@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 10:38:49 +0100
From:   Kris Chaplin <kris.chaplin@....com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Subject: w1: coding-style - naming for master/slave for new driver and dt
 binding

Hello Krzystof,

During review of my dt-bindings patches for a new w1 driver 
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/10/13/959), there was mention that the use 
of 'master' is not considered great terminology nowadays.  Are there any 
plans to replace the usage of master/slave in w1 as mentioned in 
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst ?  As we are in the final stages 
of our W1 soft IP development, I believe there is a small window in 
which we can align on our new IP name if appropriate, prior to my next 
round of patch submission for amd,axi-w1-master and get the binding to 
match.

If there is a preferred choice from the example alternatives in the 
docs, I can look to see if we can align the naming and update my next 
patch round accordingly - however if the guidance is to keep to the 
specification-defined terminology (pre-2020) then we can do so.

regards
Kris