On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 09:05:43AM GMT, Easwar Hariharan wrote: > On 6/19/2024 12:10 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >>> "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. yes, let's see how it goes. Thanks, Easwar! Andi
