On 4/2/2024 9:52 AM, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 4/2/2024 7:32 AM, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 4/2/2024 12:48 AM, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, and I3C specifications have replaced "master/slave" >>>>>> with more appropriate terms. Inspired by and following on to Wolfram's >>>>>> series to fix drivers/i2c/[1], fix the terminology for users of >>>>>> I2C_ALGOBIT bitbanging interface, now that the approved verbiage exists >>>>>> in the specification. >>>>> >>>>> gma500 and i915 changes should be split. See MAINTAINERS. >>>>> >>>>> Might also split the i915 changes to smaller pieces, it's kind of >>>>> random. And the changes here are not strictly related to I2C AFAICT, so >>>>> the commit message should be updated. >>>>> >>>>> BR, >>>>> Jani. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> I will split gma500 and i915 into their respective patches if possible in v2. >>>> >>>> Can you say more about the changes being "not strictly related to I2C"? My >>>> heuristic was to grep for master/slave, and look in the surrounding context for >>>> i2c-related terminology (i2c_pin, 7-bit address, struct i2c_adapter, i2c_bus, etc) >>>> to confirm that they are i2c-related, then following the references around to >>>> make the compiler happy. For e.g., I did not change the many references to bigjoiner >>>> master and slave because I understood from context they were not i2c references. >>>> >>>> A couple examples would help me restrict the changes to I2C, since as mentioned in the >>>> discussion on Wolfram's thread, there are places where migrating away from master/slave >>>> terms in the code would conflict with the original technical manuals and reduce correlation >>>> and understanding of the code. >>> >>> I guess I was looking at the VBT changes in intel_bios.c. Granted, they >>> do end up being used as i2c addresses. No big deal. >>> >>> I think I'd expect the treewide i2c adapter changes to land first, via >>> i2c, and subsequent cleanups to happen next, via individual driver >>> trees. There's quite a bit of conflict potential merging this outside of >>> drm-intel-next, and there's really no need for that. >>> >>> BR, >>> Jani. >>> >> >> Great! Just so I'm clear, do you still want the i915 changes split up more, along with them being >> split off from gma500? > > If we can merge the i915 changes via drm-intel-next, it's probably fine > as a big i915 patch. Just the gma500 separated. (The struct > i2c_algorithm change etc. necessarily has to go via I2C tree of course.) > > BR, > Jani. > Got it. I'll send the split out in v1 (not v2 as mentioned earlier) since this is v0. Thanks, Easwar
