On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 06:38:10PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:28:14AM -0700, Easwar Hariharan wrote: > > On 3/29/2024 10:16 AM, Andi Shyti wrote: > > > Hi Easwar, > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:00:26PM +0000, Easwar Hariharan wrote: > > >> I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, and I3C specifications have replaced "master/slave" > > > > > > I don't understand why we forget that i3c is 1.1.1 :-) > > > > That's because it's a copy-paste error from Wolfram's cover letter. :) I'll > > update > > next go-around. > > not a binding comment, though. Just for completeness, because we > are giving the version to the i2c and smbus, but not i3c. > > > >> 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. > > > > > > The specification talks about: > > > > > > - master -> controller > > > - slave -> target (and not client) > > > > > > But both you and Wolfram have used client. I'd like to reach > > > some more consistency here. > > > > I had the impression that remote targets (i.e external to the device) were > > to be called clients, > > e.g. the QSFP FRUs in drivers/infiniband, and internal ones targets. > > I chose the terminology according to that understanding, but now I can't > > find where I got that > > information. > > The word "client" does not even appear in the documentation (only > one instance in the i3c document), so that the change is not > related to the document as stated in the commit log. Unless, of > course, I am missing something. > > I'm OK with choosing a "customized" naming, but we need to reach > an agreement. > > I raised the same question to Wolfram.
I don't know where that discussion happened, but my opinion is NAK to "client". Life is already confusing enough with these renames, so let's not make it even more confusing by inventing new names nowhere to be found in the spec. And let's especially not invent names that don't even fit the purpose. "Client" makes me think of "client/server" or some real world analogy. Neither of which seem to have any resemblence to how the term would be used for i2c. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
