On 17/10/2023 11:38, Kris Chaplin wrote: > Hello Krzystof, > > During review of my dt-bindings patches for a new w1 driver > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/10/13/959), there was mention that the use > of 'master' is not considered great terminology nowadays. Are there any > plans to replace the usage of master/slave in w1 as mentioned in > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst ? I am not aware of any plans to rework/rename existing code in w1. > As we are in the final stages > of our W1 soft IP development, I believe there is a small window in > which we can align on our new IP name if appropriate, prior to my next > round of patch submission for amd,axi-w1-master and get the binding to > match. Naming of your products is little concern to us. How you name it, it is your call. The naming used in Linux matters. > > If there is a preferred choice from the example alternatives in the > docs, I can look to see if we can align the naming and update my next > patch round accordingly - however if the guidance is to keep to the > specification-defined terminology (pre-2020) then we can do so. The first diagram on https://www.analog.com/en/technical-articles/guide-to-1wire-communication.html suggests to use master->host and slave->device naming. https://www.analog.com/en/product-category/1wire-devices.html also uses "host" term. Best regards, Krzysztof
