[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <y34k2k25xdr5z4v7oejp4da237s4o5qym5npihyydwlbsdh75c@vhmfl7sw3pbm>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 13:58:05 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
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 Wolfram,
On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 09:14:40PM GMT, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > I am not a big fan of the use of the word client. It's not used
> > anywhere in the documentation and it's too generic as a name for
> > giving it a specific meaning.
> >
> > I've seen already some confusion amongst reviewers and
> > maintainers when Easwar sent the patch in drm.
> >
> > If it depends on me, I would stick to the only controller/target
> > and render obsolet the use of the word "client" in the i2c
> > context.
>
> 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.
I think we should start somewhere from using the new naming
provided by the documentation.
Other than that, I'm not blocking the patch, it's a great
improvement! I'm just trying use this chance to discuss and bring
up new opinions.
Thanks,
Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists