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!
We went with initiator/target for Glasgow. This makes perfect sense, because the "initiator" starts the transaction and the "target" is the addressee of the transaction. Even the I²C spec defines the "master" as "initiating" the transaction.https://github.com/GlasgowEmbedded/glasgow/commit/5a53dc1649a238cbf6d2f21ba599635579387f89 …
-
-
I'm torn between initiator/responder and initiator/target -- erring on the former at the moment as target sounds like the ID rather than the device itself.
-
Both are good TBH, looping in
@whitequark here. I'd rather we agree on one alternative and all stick to it, I wouldn't mind replacing the latter in Glasgow at this point to harmonize. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The thing about master/slave is that it's *terrible* terminology, as it doesn't accurately describe the bus roles. Something with servant/controller/serf perpetuates the poor naming because neither I²C device is fundamentally subservient to the other at protocol level.
-
That's an excellent argument, this is what I wanted. If we are going to change terminology, we better make it better instead.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I used this tweet in the commit message for https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd/pull/2244 … -- I hope that's okay! :)
-
I also used "target" for SMBIOS so good choice
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks for that variant because all other very confusing for not native speakers. All this theme very strange outside USA (changing words, not slave problems of course)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.