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: <0f95bbc5-c1d6-4557-b401-90fcfe541df0@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:05:43 -0700
From: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
 Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] docs: i2c: summary: document 'local' and 'remote'
 targets

On 6/19/2024 12:10 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 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.

I'm ok with this. I'll let Andi decide if he wants to have
adapter/client refactoring now or in the future or at all.

Thanks,
Easwar