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. > Maybe we are wasting time at discussing minor details, but I > consider this part important in order to give way to the major > refactoring that Wolfram started at the beginning. The refactoring only affects "master/slave" not "adapter/client". We are aligned here, aren't we? All the best, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
