[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12daffe3-ae5e-4b0f-bb61-3dd233e344bb@xs4all.nl>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:48:15 +0200
From: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>,
"open list:RADEON and AMDGPU DRM DRIVERS" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:INTEL DRM DISPLAY FOR XE AND I915 DRIVERS"
<intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"open list:INTEL DRM DISPLAY FOR XE AND I915 DRIVERS"
<intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"open list:DRM DRIVER FOR NVIDIA GEFORCE/QUADRO GPUS"
<nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"open list:I2C SUBSYSTEM HOST DRIVERS" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:BTTV VIDEO4LINUX DRIVER" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 00/14] Make I2C terminology more inclusive for I2C
Algobit and consumers
On 05/04/2024 12:18, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hello Easwar,
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:00:24PM +0000, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
>> I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, and I3C specifications have replaced "master/slave"
>> with more appropriate terms. Inspired by and following on to Wolfram's
>> series to fix drivers/i2c/[1], fix the terminology for users of the
>> I2C_ALGOBIT bitbanging interface, now that the approved verbiage exists
>> in the specification.
>
> I really appreciate that you want to assist in this task to improve the
> I2C core. I do. I am afraid, however, that you took the second step
> before the first one, though. As I mentioned in my original cover
> letter, this is not only about renaming but also improving the I2C API
> (splitting up header files...). So, drivers are not a priority right
> now. They can be better fixed once the core is ready.
>
> It is true that I changed quite some controller drivers within the i2c
> realm. I did this to gain experience. As you also noticed quite some
> questions came up. We need to agree on answers first. And once we are
> happy with the answers we found, then IMO we can go outside of the i2c
> realm and send patches to other subsystems referencing agreed
> precedence. I intentionally did not go outside i2c yet. Since your
> patches are already there, you probably want to foster them until they
> are ready for inclusion. Yet, regarding further patches, my suggestion
> is to wait until the core is ready. That might take a while, though.
> However, there is enough to discuss until the core is ready. So, your
> collaboration there is highly appreciated!
>
>> The last patch updating the .master_xfer method to .xfer depends on
>> patch 1 of Wolfram's series below, but the series is otherwise
>> independent. It may make sense for the last patch to go in with
>
> Please drop the last patch from this series. It will nicely remove the
> dependency. Also, like above, I first want to gain experience with i2c
> before going to other subsystems. That was intended.
OK, based on this I'll mark the media patches in this series as 'Deferred'
in our patchwork.
Regards,
Hans
>
> All the best and happy hacking,
>
> Wolfram
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists