Re: w1: coding-style - naming for master/slave for new driver and dt binding

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 17/10/2023 11:38, Kris Chaplin wrote:
> Hello Krzystof,
> 
> During review of my dt-bindings patches for a new w1 driver 
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/10/13/959), there was mention that the use 
> of 'master' is not considered great terminology nowadays.  Are there any 
> plans to replace the usage of master/slave in w1 as mentioned in 
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst ?

I am not aware of any plans to rework/rename existing code in w1.

>  As we are in the final stages 
> of our W1 soft IP development, I believe there is a small window in 
> which we can align on our new IP name if appropriate, prior to my next 
> round of patch submission for amd,axi-w1-master and get the binding to 
> match.

Naming of your products is little concern to us. How you name it, it is
your call.

The naming used in Linux matters.

> 
> If there is a preferred choice from the example alternatives in the 
> docs, I can look to see if we can align the naming and update my next 
> patch round accordingly - however if the guidance is to keep to the 
> specification-defined terminology (pre-2020) then we can do so.

The first diagram on
https://www.analog.com/en/technical-articles/guide-to-1wire-communication.html
suggests to use master->host and slave->device naming.

https://www.analog.com/en/product-category/1wire-devices.html also uses
"host" term.

Best regards,
Krzysztof