On 4/3/2024 6:12 AM, Jani Nikula wrote: > 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. > > Will do in v1. Thanks for the review, Jani and Ville. Thanks, Easwar
