On Wed, 03 Apr 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 06:38:10PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:28:14AM -0700, Easwar Hariharan wrote: >> > On 3/29/2024 10:16 AM, Andi Shyti wrote: >> > > Hi Easwar, >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:00:26PM +0000, Easwar Hariharan wrote: >> > >> I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, and I3C specifications have replaced "master/slave" >> > > >> > > I don't understand why we forget that i3c is 1.1.1 :-) >> > >> > That's because it's a copy-paste error from Wolfram's cover letter. :) I'll update >> > next go-around. >> >> not a binding comment, though. Just for completeness, because we >> are giving the version to the i2c and smbus, but not i3c. >> >> > >> 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. >> > > >> > > The specification talks about: >> > > >> > > - master -> controller >> > > - slave -> target (and not client) >> > > >> > > But both you and Wolfram have used client. I'd like to reach >> > > some more consistency here. >> > >> > I had the impression that remote targets (i.e external to the device) were to be called clients, >> > e.g. the QSFP FRUs in drivers/infiniband, and internal ones targets. >> > I chose the terminology according to that understanding, but now I can't find where I got that >> > information. >> >> The word "client" does not even appear in the documentation (only >> one instance in the i3c document), so that the change is not >> related to the document as stated in the commit log. Unless, of >> course, I am missing something. >> >> I'm OK with choosing a "customized" naming, but we need to reach >> an agreement. >> >> I raised the same question to Wolfram. > > I don't know where that discussion happened, but my opinion > is NAK to "client". Life is already confusing enough with > these renames, so let's not make it even more confusing by > inventing new names nowhere to be found in the spec. > > And let's especially not invent names that don't even fit > the purpose. "Client" makes me think of "client/server" or > some real world analogy. Neither of which seem to have any > resemblence to how the term would be used for i2c. Agreed. I2C 7.0, I3C 1.1.1, and SMBus 3.2 have all switched to controller/target terminology. The SMBus spec has additionally converted generic host references to controller. At least for i915 where I have some say in the matter, controller/target it shall be. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
