| Message ID | 20240329170038.3863998-1-eahariha@linux.microsoft.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Make I2C terminology more inclusive for I2C Algobit and consumers | expand |
On 3/29/2024 10:38 AM, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi, > <snip> > >>>> 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. > > Thanks, > Andi I don't have a preference between using target and client. As I mentioned in the thread fork, my information came entirely from Wolfram's cover letter and patch messages. I'll follow along with whatever you and Wolfram settle on. Thanks, Easwar
Hello Easwar, On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:00:24PM +0000, 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 the > I2C_ALGOBIT bitbanging interface, now that the approved verbiage exists > in the specification. I really appreciate that you want to assist in this task to improve the I2C core. I do. I am afraid, however, that you took the second step before the first one, though. As I mentioned in my original cover letter, this is not only about renaming but also improving the I2C API (splitting up header files...). So, drivers are not a priority right now. They can be better fixed once the core is ready. It is true that I changed quite some controller drivers within the i2c realm. I did this to gain experience. As you also noticed quite some questions came up. We need to agree on answers first. And once we are happy with the answers we found, then IMO we can go outside of the i2c realm and send patches to other subsystems referencing agreed precedence. I intentionally did not go outside i2c yet. Since your patches are already there, you probably want to foster them until they are ready for inclusion. Yet, regarding further patches, my suggestion is to wait until the core is ready. That might take a while, though. However, there is enough to discuss until the core is ready. So, your collaboration there is highly appreciated! > The last patch updating the .master_xfer method to .xfer depends on > patch 1 of Wolfram's series below, but the series is otherwise > independent. It may make sense for the last patch to go in with Please drop the last patch from this series. It will nicely remove the dependency. Also, like above, I first want to gain experience with i2c before going to other subsystems. That was intended. All the best and happy hacking, Wolfram
Hi Wolfram, On 4/5/2024 3:18 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hello Easwar, > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:00:24PM +0000, 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 the >> I2C_ALGOBIT bitbanging interface, now that the approved verbiage exists >> in the specification. > > I really appreciate that you want to assist in this task to improve the > I2C core. I do. I am afraid, however, that you took the second step > before the first one, though. As I mentioned in my original cover > letter, this is not only about renaming but also improving the I2C API > (splitting up header files...). So, drivers are not a priority right > now. They can be better fixed once the core is ready. > Sorry, got excited. :) There were drivers I'd been part of that I specifically wanted to fixup, but then the scope grew to other users of algobit. > It is true that I changed quite some controller drivers within the i2c > realm. I did this to gain experience. As you also noticed quite some > questions came up. We need to agree on answers first. And once we are > happy with the answers we found, then IMO we can go outside of the i2c > realm and send patches to other subsystems referencing agreed > precedence. I intentionally did not go outside i2c yet. Since your > patches are already there, you probably want to foster them until they > are ready for inclusion. Sorry, I don't quite follow what you mean by foster in this context. Are you asking me to hold off on merging the series, or to follow through on getting it merged? Yet, regarding further patches, my suggestion > is to wait until the core is ready. That might take a while, though. > However, there is enough to discuss until the core is ready. So, your > collaboration there is highly appreciated! > >> The last patch updating the .master_xfer method to .xfer depends on >> patch 1 of Wolfram's series below, but the series is otherwise >> independent. It may make sense for the last patch to go in with > > Please drop the last patch from this series. It will nicely remove the > dependency. Also, like above, I first want to gain experience with i2c > before going to other subsystems. That was intended. > Will do, thanks! > All the best and happy hacking, > > Wolfram >
Hi Easwar, > Sorry, got excited. :) There were drivers I'd been part of that I specifically > wanted to fixup, but then the scope grew to other users of algobit. Well, you got some positive feedback, so that is good. > > It is true that I changed quite some controller drivers within the i2c > > realm. I did this to gain experience. As you also noticed quite some > > questions came up. We need to agree on answers first. And once we are > > happy with the answers we found, then IMO we can go outside of the i2c > > realm and send patches to other subsystems referencing agreed > > precedence. I intentionally did not go outside i2c yet. Since your > > patches are already there, you probably want to foster them until they > > are ready for inclusion. > > Sorry, I don't quite follow what you mean by foster in this context. Are > you asking me to hold off on merging the series, or to follow through on > getting it merged? I think they are your patches, so this is up to you to decide. With "foster", I meant you keep working on them until everyone is happy. I haven't looked at the drivers you modify. I can't tell if they can be converted right away or if they use a lot of I2C API calls, so that it makes sense to wait until the core is converted. I trust you to decide this. Happy hacking, Wolfram
On 05/04/2024 12:18, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hello Easwar, > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:00:24PM +0000, 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 the >> I2C_ALGOBIT bitbanging interface, now that the approved verbiage exists >> in the specification. > > I really appreciate that you want to assist in this task to improve the > I2C core. I do. I am afraid, however, that you took the second step > before the first one, though. As I mentioned in my original cover > letter, this is not only about renaming but also improving the I2C API > (splitting up header files...). So, drivers are not a priority right > now. They can be better fixed once the core is ready. > > It is true that I changed quite some controller drivers within the i2c > realm. I did this to gain experience. As you also noticed quite some > questions came up. We need to agree on answers first. And once we are > happy with the answers we found, then IMO we can go outside of the i2c > realm and send patches to other subsystems referencing agreed > precedence. I intentionally did not go outside i2c yet. Since your > patches are already there, you probably want to foster them until they > are ready for inclusion. Yet, regarding further patches, my suggestion > is to wait until the core is ready. That might take a while, though. > However, there is enough to discuss until the core is ready. So, your > collaboration there is highly appreciated! > >> The last patch updating the .master_xfer method to .xfer depends on >> patch 1 of Wolfram's series below, but the series is otherwise >> independent. It may make sense for the last patch to go in with > > Please drop the last patch from this series. It will nicely remove the > dependency. Also, like above, I first want to gain experience with i2c > before going to other subsystems. That was intended. OK, based on this I'll mark the media patches in this series as 'Deferred' in our patchwork. Regards, Hans > > All the best and happy hacking, > > Wolfram >