[PATCH v0 03/14] drm/gma500,drm/i915: Make I2C terminology more inclusive

[Easwar Hariharan]

On 4/2/2024 9:52 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha at linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2024 7:32 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha at linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2024 12:48 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Easwar Hariharan <eahariha at linux.microsoft.com> 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, now that the approved verbiage exists
>>>>>> in the specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> gma500 and i915 changes should be split. See MAINTAINERS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Might also split the i915 changes to smaller pieces, it's kind of
>>>>> random. And the changes here are not strictly related to I2C AFAICT, so
>>>>> the commit message should be updated.
>>>>>
>>>>> BR,
>>>>> Jani.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I will split gma500 and i915 into their respective patches if possible in v2.
>>>>
>>>> Can you say more about the changes being "not strictly related to I2C"? My
>>>> heuristic was to grep for master/slave, and look in the surrounding context for
>>>> i2c-related terminology (i2c_pin, 7-bit address, struct i2c_adapter, i2c_bus, etc)
>>>> to confirm that they are i2c-related, then following the references around to
>>>> make the compiler happy. For e.g., I did not change the many references to bigjoiner
>>>> master and slave because I understood from context they were not i2c references.
>>>>
>>>> A couple examples would help me restrict the changes to I2C, since as mentioned in the
>>>> discussion on Wolfram's thread, there are places where migrating away from master/slave
>>>> terms in the code would conflict with the original technical manuals and reduce correlation
>>>> and understanding of the code.
>>>
>>> I guess I was looking at the VBT changes in intel_bios.c. Granted, they
>>> do end up being used as i2c addresses. No big deal.
>>>
>>> I think I'd expect the treewide i2c adapter changes to land first, via
>>> i2c, and subsequent cleanups to happen next, via individual driver
>>> trees. There's quite a bit of conflict potential merging this outside of
>>> drm-intel-next, and there's really no need for that.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Jani.
>>>
>>
>> Great! Just so I'm clear, do you still want the i915 changes split up more, along with them being
>> split off from gma500?
> 
> If we can merge the i915 changes via drm-intel-next, it's probably fine
> as a big i915 patch. Just the gma500 separated. (The struct
> i2c_algorithm change etc. necessarily has to go via I2C tree of course.)
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 

Got it. I'll send the split out in v1 (not v2 as mentioned earlier) since this is v0.

Thanks,
Easwar