On 5/3/2024 12:34 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 06:13:24PM +0000, Easwar Hariharan wrote: >> I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, and I3C 1.1.1 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. >> >> Compile tested, no functionality changes intended >> >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240322132619.6389-1-wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > It looks like the ack is not needed since we are merging this through > drm-intel-next. But I'm planing to merge this only after seeing the > main drivers/i2c accepting the new terminology. So we don't have a > risk of that getting push back and new names there and we having > to rename it once again. Just to be explicit, did you want me to remove the Acked-by in v3, or will you when you pull the patch into drm-intel-next? > > (more below) > >> Acked-by: Zhi Wang <zhiwang@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > Jani, what bits were you concerned that were not necessarily i2c? > I believe although not necessarily/directly i2c, I believe they > are related and could benefit from the massive single shot renable. > or do you have any better split to suggest here? > > (more below) > >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_ch7017.c | 14 ++++----- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_ch7xxx.c | 18 +++++------ >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_ivch.c | 16 +++++----- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_ns2501.c | 18 +++++------ >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_sil164.c | 18 +++++------ >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_tfp410.c | 18 +++++------ >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.c | 22 +++++++------- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c | 2 +- >> .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h | 2 +- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi.h | 2 +- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.c | 20 ++++++------- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dvo.c | 14 ++++----- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dvo_dev.h | 2 +- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_gmbus.c | 4 +-- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_sdvo.c | 30 +++++++++---------- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h | 4 +-- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/edid.c | 28 ++++++++--------- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/edid.h | 4 +-- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/opregion.c | 2 +- >> 19 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-) >> <snip> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c >> index c17462b4c2ac..64db211148a8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c >> @@ -4332,7 +4332,7 @@ static int intel_ddi_compute_config_late(struct intel_encoder *encoder, >> connector->tile_group->id); >> >> /* >> - * EDP Transcoders cannot be ensalved >> + * EDP Transcoders cannot be slaves > > ^ here > perhaps you meant 'targeted' ? > >> * make them a master always when present <snip> This is not actually I2C related as far as I could tell when I was making the change, so this was more of a typo fix. If we want to improve this, a quick check with the eDP v1.5a spec suggests using primary/secondary instead, though in a global fashion rather than specifically for eDP transcoders. There is also source/sink terminology in the spec related to DP encoders. Which would be a more acceptable change here? Thanks, Easwar
