Re: [PATCH v0 13/14] drm/nouveau: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

2024-04-05 Thread Lyude Paul
On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 09:30 -0700, Easwar Hariharan wrote: > > Thanks for the review, and for the appetite to go further! So we are > on the same page, you would prefer > renaming to controller/target like the feedback on other drm drivers > (i915, gma500, radeon)? FWIW I'm in support of this as

Re: [PATCH v0 13/14] drm/nouveau: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

2024-04-05 Thread Easwar Hariharan
On 4/5/2024 9:15 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > Hi Easwar, > > On 3/29/24 18:00, 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

Re: [PATCH v0 13/14] drm/nouveau: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

2024-04-05 Thread Danilo Krummrich
Hi Easwar, On 3/29/24 18:00, 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 I2C_ALGOBIT bitbanging interface,

[PATCH v0 13/14] drm/nouveau: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

2024-03-29 Thread Easwar Hariharan
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