On 6/10/2024 1:29 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi Easwar, > >> 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? > > I am not sure I understand the question properly? > > "controller/target" as in the specs, and "adapter/client" when it comes > to the Linux implementation (which has been like this forever). I'd > think it is too much churn to change this as well. > >> Confused, > > Heh, me too now... > > All the best, > > Wolfram I am wondering what the impact of this doc update is on my series[1]. I am looking for a straightforward recommendation for what terminology I, and hopefully others, should adopt *outside the i2c subsystem*, where Linux (typically) has a driver for the controller and is communicating with an unknown OS/firmware on the target. a) Spec-compliant "controller/target" b) Linux implementation/spec hybrid "controller/client", or c) Linux implementation "adapter/client" I prefer (a), FWIW, so do apparently reviewers on my series. Thanks, Easwar [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240508234342.2927398-1-eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
