On 4/2/2024 7:32 AM, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 4/2/2024 12:48 AM, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, and I3C specifications have replaced "master/slave" >>>> with more appropriate terms. Inspired by and following on to Wolfram's >>>> series to fix drivers/i2c/[1], fix the terminology for users of >>>> I2C_ALGOBIT bitbanging interface, now that the approved verbiage exists >>>> in the specification. >>> >>> gma500 and i915 changes should be split. See MAINTAINERS. >>> >>> Might also split the i915 changes to smaller pieces, it's kind of >>> random. And the changes here are not strictly related to I2C AFAICT, so >>> the commit message should be updated. >>> >>> BR, >>> Jani. >>> >>> >> >> <snip> >> >> I will split gma500 and i915 into their respective patches if possible in v2. >> >> Can you say more about the changes being "not strictly related to I2C"? My >> heuristic was to grep for master/slave, and look in the surrounding context for >> i2c-related terminology (i2c_pin, 7-bit address, struct i2c_adapter, i2c_bus, etc) >> to confirm that they are i2c-related, then following the references around to >> make the compiler happy. For e.g., I did not change the many references to bigjoiner >> master and slave because I understood from context they were not i2c references. >> >> A couple examples would help me restrict the changes to I2C, since as mentioned in the >> discussion on Wolfram's thread, there are places where migrating away from master/slave >> terms in the code would conflict with the original technical manuals and reduce correlation >> and understanding of the code. > > I guess I was looking at the VBT changes in intel_bios.c. Granted, they > do end up being used as i2c addresses. No big deal. > > I think I'd expect the treewide i2c adapter changes to land first, via > i2c, and subsequent cleanups to happen next, via individual driver > trees. There's quite a bit of conflict potential merging this outside of > drm-intel-next, and there's really no need for that. > > BR, > Jani. > Great! Just so I'm clear, do you still want the i915 changes split up more, along with them being split off from gma500? Thanks, Easwar
