Re: [PATCH v0 02/14] drm/amdgpu,drm/radeon: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

Easwar Hariharan
2024-04-03T16:42:29Z

On 4/3/2024 6:12 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I2C 7.0, I3C 1.1.1, and SMBus 3.2 have all switched to controller/target
> terminology. The SMBus spec has additionally converted generic host
> references to controller.
>
> At least for i915 where I have some say in the matter, controller/target
> it shall be.
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>

Will do in v1. Thanks for the review, Jani and Ville.

Thanks,
Easwar