PSA: we've got a couple projects switching from I²C "master/slave" to "initiator/target" already, so if you're looking for more accurate and descriptive nomenclature, consider these :) https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd/pull/2244 … https://github.com/GlasgowEmbedded/glasgow/commit/5a53dc1649a238cbf6d2f21ba599635579387f89 …
-
Show this thread
-
(Reminder that regardless of what you think about cultural sensitivities, these are just *better terms* that much more accurately describe the device roles, and even the I²C defines the term master as the "initiatiating" device)
2 replies 9 retweets 79 likesShow this thread -
Cc
@ohsummit, since you're pushing for new definitions for SPI. what do you think about this for I²C? In this case the pin names don't need changing, only device role terminology.2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
I think 'Clocker - Clockee' for I²C is descriptive and accurate. There are those who do the clocking, and those who get clocked.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Clock stretching says both sides are clockers! In practice the clock is the lowest rate of both sides' demands :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Clock stretching is an act against nature. It isn't clocking, it's vandalism. It's literally sticking your foot in the door so the train can't leave. It's a sign of a weak design, and poor character.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think you may be associating too much meaning to protocol design features :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
..and yet we're arguing that the names we use in these protocols are a mirror of society. Some protocols are anti-social, and that includes clock stretching
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Nah, I'm arguing that the names we use in these protocols are just bad and don't accurately represent the protocol roles :-)
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.