On 6/17/2024 4:58 AM, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 09:14:40PM GMT, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> I am not a big fan of the use of the word client. It's not used >>> anywhere in the documentation and it's too generic as a name for >>> giving it a specific meaning. >>> >>> I've seen already some confusion amongst reviewers and >>> maintainers when Easwar sent the patch in drm. >>> >>> If it depends on me, I would stick to the only controller/target >>> and render obsolet the use of the word "client" in the i2c >>> context. >> >> Have you read the paragraph "Synonyms" from patch 6? I don't think we >> can obsolete client because: >> >> $ git grep 'struct i2c_client \*client' | wc -l >> 6100 > at least saying that "target" is the > preferred name for what was called "client" until now. I'm in agreement on obsoleting "client" as well. On the pace of change, I'll defer to you. I was trying to elicit a recommendation on future use of "client" when I asked: === What's the combined effect of this documentation update in terms of the recommendation for switching over the Linux kernel? Are we to use controller/client or controller/target? === "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. I think we are on the same page here if we just remove the caveats. Thanks, Easwar
