Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] i2c: designware: Introduce shutdown exported function

["William A. Kennington III" <william@wkennington.com>]

On 5/7/26 03:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 12:56:50AM -0700, William A. Kennington III wrote:
>> On 5/5/26 00:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 08:15:02PM +0000, William A. Kennington III wrote:
>>>> Introduce an exported shutdown function to safely shutdown the
>>>> DesignWare I2C controller.
>>>>
>>>> This shutdown hook gracefully sets the slave disable bit before disabling
>>>> the controller. This guarantees that any incoming requests from the master
>>>> are immediately NACKed during shutdown, preventing the bus from hanging.
> ...
>
>> Is this just language correction?
> I have asked for replacing 'slave'/'master' terminology to a new,
> inclusive one.
Yeah, this is exactly what I figured I just wanted to make sure I didn't 
misunderstand. I updated all of those cases in all the patches.
> ...
>
>
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * We only need to handle shutdown for slave mode to ensure
>>>> +	 * we NACK any incoming master requests. Master mode cleanup
>>>> +	 * is handled after each transfer in i2c_dw_xfer.
>>> i2c_dw_xfer()
>>>
>>>> +	 */
>>> Since it's a newly added comment, can you switch to use inclusive language?
>>> Same for the whole series related to the commit messages, comments, and
>>> documentation.
> Same here and...
>
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * To quickly NACK the master during shutdown, we set the slave
>>>> +	 * disable bit while the controller is still enabled.
>>>> +	 */
> ...here.
>
> ...
>
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(i2c_dw_shutdown);
>>> Can we use namespace?
>> It already does use namespaces with
>>
>> `#define DEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE    "I2C_DW_COMMON"`
>>
>> I assume I should just keep it consistent as-is?
> Yep, thanks for pointing that out!
>