Re: [PATCH v0 02/14] drm/amdgpu,drm/radeon: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

[Christian König]

Am 03.04.24 um 15:12 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 06:38:10PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:28:14AM -0700, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
> > > > On 3/29/2024 10:16 AM, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > > Hi Easwar,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:00:26PM +0000, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
> > > > > > I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, and I3C specifications have replaced "master/slave"
> > > > > I don't understand why we forget that i3c is 1.1.1 :-)
> > > > That's because it's a copy-paste error from Wolfram's cover letter. :) I'll update
> > > > next go-around.
> > > not a binding comment, though. Just for completeness, because we
> > > are giving the version to the i2c and smbus, but not i3c.
> > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > I don't know where that discussion happened, but my opinion
> > is NAK to "client". Life is already confusing enough with
> > these renames, so let's not make it even more confusing by
> > inventing new names nowhere to be found in the spec.
> >
> > And let's especially not invent names that don't even fit
> > the purpose. "Client" makes me think of "client/server" or
> > some real world analogy. Neither of which seem to have any
> > resemblence to how the term would be used for i2c.
> Agreed.
>
> I2C 7.0, I3C 1.1.1, and SMBus 3.2 have all switched to controller/target
> terminology. The SMBus spec has additionally converted generic host
> references to controller.
>
> At least for i915 where I have some say in the matter, controller/target
> it shall be.

+1 for using the same vocabulary in amdgpu as in the specifications.

My personal opinion is that master/slave was actually a pretty good 
description of the relationship.

The "slave" or rather target of the communication is forced into 
operation, can't speak back and potentially won't get any payment for 
the serving.

If we remove the word slave from our vocabulary society will just sooner 
or later start to forget the meaning, and that is probably not a good thing.

Regards,
Christian.

> BR,
> Jani.