linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <da534343-419d-4fb1-a50a-cf5da19b08c5@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 15:56:47 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Kris Chaplin <kris.chaplin@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: w1: coding-style - naming for master/slave for new driver and dt
 binding

On 17/10/2023 11:38, Kris Chaplin wrote:
> 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 ?

I am not aware of any plans to rework/rename existing code in w1.

>  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.

Naming of your products is little concern to us. How you name it, it is
your call.

The naming used in Linux matters.

> 
> 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.

The first diagram on
https://www.analog.com/en/technical-articles/guide-to-1wire-communication.html
suggests to use master->host and slave->device naming.

https://www.analog.com/en/product-category/1wire-devices.html also uses
"host" term.

Best regards,
Krzysztof