Re: [PATCH v0 03/14] drm/gma500,drm/i915: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

Easwar Hariharan
2024-04-02T12:06:32Z

On 4/2/2024 12:48 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@linux.microsoft.com> 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.

Thanks,
Easwar