I'm trying to get rid of all remaining instances of "slave" in the fwupd codebase. The advice is primary and secondary, but for i2c that's just not accurate as it is the master _telling_ the slave what to do, rather than the slave being a fallback. Other ideas welcome too!
-
initiator/target ? It might confuse those new to the code that are just reading the standard though.https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1268051590084087809 …
Yeah, about that standard...https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/990497828723089409 …
maybe if instead of master/slave you called the modes initiator/responder (like iSCSI did) you wouldn't need a glossary 
pic.twitter.com/6NL6S9YP55
pic.twitter.com/6NL6S9YP55
-
-
Maybe initiator/responder is perfect for i2c after all...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So a master is basically the transmitter? And the slave is the receiver?
-
The "master" initiates the communication and the "slave" answers. Both transmit and receive, both can reject a transmission of the other side, and both control the speed/clock of the communications (but in different ways). So the master/slave terminology is *terrible*.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.