Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] drm/i915: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

Easwar Hariharan
2024-05-03T21:04:16Z

On 5/3/2024 12:34 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 06:13:24PM +0000, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
>> I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, and I3C 1.1.1 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/
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>> Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>
> It looks like the ack is not needed since we are merging this through
> drm-intel-next. But I'm planing to merge this only after seeing the
> main drivers/i2c accepting the new terminology. So we don't have a
> risk of that getting push back and new names there and we having
> to rename it once again.

Just to be explicit, did you want me to remove the Acked-by in v3, or will you when you pull
the patch into drm-intel-next?

>
> (more below)
>
>> Acked-by: Zhi Wang <zhiwang@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@linux.microsoft.com>
>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>
> Jani, what bits were you concerned that were not necessarily i2c?
> I believe although not necessarily/directly i2c, I believe they
> are related and could benefit from the massive single shot renable.
> or do you have any better split to suggest here?
>
> (more below)
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_ch7017.c | 14 ++++-----
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_ch7xxx.c | 18 +++++------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_ivch.c | 16 +++++-----
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_ns2501.c | 18 +++++------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_sil164.c | 18 +++++------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/dvo_tfp410.c | 18 +++++------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.c | 22 +++++++-------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c | 2 +-
>> .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.c | 20 ++++++-------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dvo.c | 14 ++++-----
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dvo_dev.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_gmbus.c | 4 +--
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_sdvo.c | 30 +++++++++----------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h | 4 +--
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/edid.c | 28 ++++++++---------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/edid.h | 4 +--
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/opregion.c | 2 +-
>> 19 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
>>

<snip>

>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c
>> index c17462b4c2ac..64db211148a8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_ddi.c
>> @@ -4332,7 +4332,7 @@ static int intel_ddi_compute_config_late(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
>> connector->tile_group->id);
>>
>> /*
>> - * EDP Transcoders cannot be ensalved
>> + * EDP Transcoders cannot be slaves
>
> ^ here
> perhaps you meant 'targeted' ?
>
>> * make them a master always when present

<snip>

This is not actually I2C related as far as I could tell when I was making the change, so this was more of a typo fix.

If we want to improve this, a quick check with the eDP v1.5a spec suggests using primary/secondary instead,
though in a global fashion rather than specifically for eDP transcoders. There is also source/sink terminology
in the spec related to DP encoders.

Which would be a more acceptable change here?

Thanks,
Easwar