linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] docs: i2c: summary: document 'local' and 'remote' targets

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:45:16 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, 
	Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] docs: i2c: summary: document 'local' and 'remote'
 targets

Hi Andi

> > Have you read the paragraph "Synonyms" from patch 6? I don't think we
> > can obsolete client because:
> > 
> > $ git grep 'struct i2c_client \*client' | wc -l
> > 6100
> 
> yes, I know, but I would be happy if we start changing i2c_client
> with i2c_target and at least saying that "target" is the
> preferred name for what was called "client" until now.

This is largely what patch 6 does? Let me quote:

+As mentioned above, the Linux I2C implementation historically uses the terms                                                                                                                     │
+"adapter" for controller and "client" for target. A number of data structures                                                                                                                    │
+have these synonyms in their name. So, to discuss implementation details, it                                                                                                                     │
+might be easier to use these terms. If speaking about I2C in general, the                                                                                                                        │
+official terminology is preferred.                                                                                                                                                               │

> I think we should start somewhere from using the new naming
> provided by the documentation.

I think I can justify replacing "master/slave" and create quite some
churn because that terminology is unwanted language.

I think I cannot justify replacing "adapter/client" just because it
doesn't match the spec. Plus, the churn would be a lot bigger.

If everyone (especially affected subsystem maintainers) is like "Yeah,
do it!" I can do it. But I have my doubts...

Happy hacking,

   Wolfram


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)