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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <cu2mkl42byhce6eytcnw7yseogbnypgtrkoirlezakwg35egdg@vjjye4ca7yey>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:10:26 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
Cc: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>, 
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, 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,

> > "Synonyms" from patch 6 does say that controller/target is preferred but
> > couched it in the caveat "If speaking about I2C in general" and
> > adapter/client when "discuss[ing] implementation details." I was trying
> > to give space for an unambiguous recommendation.
> 
> Exactly, this is what I referred to in my previous e-mails.
> These two statements sound a bit ambiguous to me, as well.

Okay, here is my proposed update:

===

diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
index 90f46f1504fe..579a1c7df200 100644
--- a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
+++ b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
@@ -67,9 +67,9 @@ Synonyms
 
 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.
+have these synonyms in their name. So, when discussing implementation details,
+you should be aware of these terms as well. The official wording is preferred,
+though.

===

I don't want to be stricter than "preferred". If someone still wants to
use 'struct i2c_client *client' this is fine with me.

> Maybe we are wasting time at discussing minor details, but I
> consider this part important in order to give way to the major
> refactoring that Wolfram started at the beginning.

The refactoring only affects "master/slave" not "adapter/client". We are

aligned here, aren't we?

All the best,

   Wolfram


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