Re: [PATCH v0 13/14] drm/nouveau: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

Easwar Hariharan
2024-04-05T16:30:21Z

On 4/5/2024 9:15 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> Hi Easwar,
>
> On 3/29/24 18:00, 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 for users of
>> I2C_ALGOBIT bitbanging interface, 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/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv04/dfp.c             | 14 +++++++-------
>>   .../gpu/drm/nouveau/include/nvkm/subdev/bios/dcb.h |  2 +-
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c             |  4 ++--
>>   3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv04/dfp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv04/dfp.c
>> index d5b129dc623b..65b791006b19 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv04/dfp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv04/dfp.c
>> @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ void nv04_dfp_update_fp_control(struct drm_encoder *encoder, int mode)
>>       }
>>   }
>>   -static struct drm_encoder *get_tmds_slave(struct drm_encoder *encoder)
>> +static struct drm_encoder *get_tmds_client(struct drm_encoder *encoder)
>>   {
>>       struct drm_device *dev = encoder->dev;
>>       struct dcb_output *dcb = nouveau_encoder(encoder)->dcb;
>> @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ static struct drm_encoder *get_tmds_slave(struct drm_encoder *encoder)
>>           struct dcb_output *slave_dcb = nouveau_encoder(slave)->dcb;
>>             if (slave_dcb->type == DCB_OUTPUT_TMDS && get_slave_funcs(slave) &&
>> -            slave_dcb->tmdsconf.slave_addr == dcb->tmdsconf.slave_addr)
>> +            slave_dcb->tmdsconf.client_addr == dcb->tmdsconf.client_addr)
>>               return slave;
>
> While, personally, I think master/slave was well suiting for the device relationship
> on those busses, I think that if we change it up to conform with the change in
> specification, we should make sure to update drivers consistently.
>
> We should make sure to also change the names of the sourrounding structures and variable
> names, otherwise we just make this code harder to read.
>
> - Danilo
>

Thanks for the review, and for the appetite to go further! So we are on the same page, you would prefer
renaming to controller/target like the feedback on other drm drivers (i915, gma500, radeon)?

Thanks,
Easwar