Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] docs: i2c: summary: document use of inclusive language

[Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@linux.microsoft.com>]

On 6/10/2024 1:29 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Easwar,
> 
>> What's the combined effect of this documentation update in terms of the
>> recommendation for switching over the Linux kernel? Are we to use
>> controller/client or controller/target?
> 
> I am not sure I understand the question properly?
> 
> "controller/target" as in the specs, and "adapter/client" when it comes
> to the Linux implementation (which has been like this forever). I'd
> think it is too much churn to change this as well.
> 
>> Confused,
> 
> Heh, me too now...
> 
> All the best,
> 
>    Wolfram

I am wondering what the impact of this doc update is on my series[1]. I
am looking for a straightforward recommendation for what terminology I,
and hopefully others, should adopt *outside the i2c subsystem*, where
Linux (typically) has a driver for the controller and is communicating
with an unknown OS/firmware on the target.

a) Spec-compliant "controller/target"
b) Linux implementation/spec hybrid "controller/client", or
c) Linux implementation "adapter/client"

I prefer (a), FWIW, so do apparently reviewers on my series.

Thanks,
Easwar

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240508234342.2927398-1-eahariha@linux.microsoft.com/