Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] docs: i2c: summary: document 'local' and 'remote' targets

[Wolfram Sang]

Hi,

> > "Synonyms" from patch 6 does say that controller/target is preferred but
> > couched it in the caveat "If speaking about I2C in general" and
> > adapter/client when "discuss[ing] implementation details." I was trying
> > to give space for an unambiguous recommendation.
> 
> Exactly, this is what I referred to in my previous e-mails.
> These two statements sound a bit ambiguous to me, as well.

Okay, here is my proposed update:

===

diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
index 90f46f1504fe..579a1c7df200 100644
--- a/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
+++ b/Documentation/i2c/summary.rst
@@ -67,9 +67,9 @@ Synonyms
 
 As mentioned above, the Linux I2C implementation historically uses the terms
 "adapter" for controller and "client" for target. A number of data structures
-have these synonyms in their name. So, to discuss implementation details, it
-might be easier to use these terms. If speaking about I2C in general, the
-official terminology is preferred.
+have these synonyms in their name. So, when discussing implementation details,
+you should be aware of these terms as well. The official wording is preferred,
+though.

===

I don't want to be stricter than "preferred". If someone still wants to
use 'struct i2c_client *client' this is fine with me.

> Maybe we are wasting time at discussing minor details, but I
> consider this part important in order to give way to the major
> refactoring that Wolfram started at the beginning.

The refactoring only affects "master/slave" not "adapter/client". We are

aligned here, aren't we?

All the best,

   Wolfram

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature