Re: [PATCH v0 03/14] drm/gma500,drm/i915: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

[Easwar Hariharan]

On 4/2/2024 7:32 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2024 12:48 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>>>
>>> gma500 and i915 changes should be split. See MAINTAINERS.
>>>
>>> Might also split the i915 changes to smaller pieces, it's kind of
>>> random. And the changes here are not strictly related to I2C AFAICT, so
>>> the commit message should be updated.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Jani.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I will split gma500 and i915 into their respective patches if possible in v2.
>>
>> Can you say more about the changes being "not strictly related to I2C"? My
>> heuristic was to grep for master/slave, and look in the surrounding context for
>> i2c-related terminology (i2c_pin, 7-bit address, struct i2c_adapter, i2c_bus, etc)
>> to confirm that they are i2c-related, then following the references around to
>> make the compiler happy. For e.g., I did not change the many references to bigjoiner
>> master and slave because I understood from context they were not i2c references.
>>
>> A couple examples would help me restrict the changes to I2C, since as mentioned in the
>> discussion on Wolfram's thread, there are places where migrating away from master/slave
>> terms in the code would conflict with the original technical manuals and reduce correlation
>> and understanding of the code.
> 
> I guess I was looking at the VBT changes in intel_bios.c. Granted, they
> do end up being used as i2c addresses. No big deal.
> 
> I think I'd expect the treewide i2c adapter changes to land first, via
> i2c, and subsequent cleanups to happen next, via individual driver
> trees. There's quite a bit of conflict potential merging this outside of
> drm-intel-next, and there's really no need for that.
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 

Great! Just so I'm clear, do you still want the i915 changes split up more, along with them being
split off from gma500?

Thanks,
Easwar