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

[Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@linux.microsoft.com>]

On 6/17/2024 4:58 AM, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Wolfram,
> 
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 09:14:40PM GMT, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> I am not a big fan of the use of the word client. It's not used
>>> anywhere in the documentation and it's too generic as a name for
>>> giving it a specific meaning.
>>>
>>> I've seen already some confusion amongst reviewers and
>>> maintainers when Easwar sent the patch in drm.
>>>
>>> If it depends on me, I would stick to the only controller/target
>>> and render obsolet the use of the word "client" in the i2c
>>> context.
>>
>> Have you read the paragraph "Synonyms" from patch 6? I don't think we
>> can obsolete client because:
>>
>> $ git grep 'struct i2c_client \*client' | wc -l
>> 6100

> at least saying that "target" is the
> preferred name for what was called "client" until now.

I'm in agreement on obsoleting "client" as well. On the pace of change,
I'll defer to you. I was trying to elicit a recommendation on future use
of "client" when I asked:

===
What's the combined effect of this documentation update in terms of the
recommendation for switching over the Linux kernel? Are we to use
controller/client or controller/target?
===

"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.

I think we are on the same page here if we just remove the caveats.

Thanks,
Easwar