Re: [PATCH v0 01/14] IB/hfi1, IB/qib: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

Dennis Dalessandro
2024-04-03T15:55:05Z

On 4/3/24 4:30 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:00:25PM +0000, Easwar Hariharan 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 where I had a role to play, 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@sang-engineering.com/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@linux.microsoft.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/chip.c | 6 ++--
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/chip.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/chip_registers.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/file_ops.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/firmware.c | 22 ++++++-------
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/pcie.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/qsfp.c | 36 ++++++++++-----------
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/user_exp_rcv.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_twsi.c | 6 ++--
>> 9 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> hfi1 and qib work perfectly fine with the current terminology. There is
> no need to change old code just for the sake of change.
>
> Let's drop this patch.

Agreed.