On 6/19/2024 12:10 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi, > >>> "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. >> >> Exactly, this is what I referred to in my previous e-mails. >> These two statements sound a bit ambiguous to me, as well. > > Okay, here is my proposed update: > > === > > diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst > index 90f46f1504fe..579a1c7df200 100644 > --- a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst > +++ b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst > @@ -67,9 +67,9 @@ Synonyms > > As mentioned above, the Linux I2C implementation historically uses the terms > "adapter" for controller and "client" for target. A number of data structures > -have these synonyms in their name. So, to discuss implementation details, it > -might be easier to use these terms. If speaking about I2C in general, the > -official terminology is preferred. > +have these synonyms in their name. So, when discussing implementation details, > +you should be aware of these terms as well. The official wording is preferred, > +though. > > === > > I don't want to be stricter than "preferred". If someone still wants to > use 'struct i2c_client *client' this is fine with me. I'm ok with this. I'll let Andi decide if he wants to have adapter/client refactoring now or in the future or at all. Thanks, Easwar
