linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] docs: i2c: summary: document use of inclusive language

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

Message-ID: <2770eb46-7322-4638-a5fe-9d994458a5c2@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:43:22 -0700
From: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
 linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] docs: i2c: summary: document use of inclusive
 language

On 6/10/2024 1:29 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Easwar,
> 
>> What's the combined effect of this documentation update in terms of the
>> recommendation for switching over the Linux kernel? Are we to use
>> controller/client or controller/target?
> 
> I am not sure I understand the question properly?
> 
> "controller/target" as in the specs, and "adapter/client" when it comes
> to the Linux implementation (which has been like this forever). I'd
> think it is too much churn to change this as well.
> 
>> Confused,
> 
> Heh, me too now...
> 
> All the best,
> 
>    Wolfram

I am wondering what the impact of this doc update is on my series[1]. I
am looking for a straightforward recommendation for what terminology I,
and hopefully others, should adopt *outside the i2c subsystem*, where
Linux (typically) has a driver for the controller and is communicating
with an unknown OS/firmware on the target.

a) Spec-compliant "controller/target"
b) Linux implementation/spec hybrid "controller/client", or
c) Linux implementation "adapter/client"

I prefer (a), FWIW, so do apparently reviewers on my series.

Thanks,
Easwar

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240508234342.2927398-1-eahariha@linux.microsoft.com/