From: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
"intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
even better.
Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
---
Changed in v2:
- this patch is new in v2
---
Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst b/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
index 6f2da7f386fd..65ed76bc979f 100644
--- a/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
+++ b/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ When using a mux-locked mux, be aware of the following restrictions:
I.e. the select-transfer-deselect transaction targeting e.g. device
address 0x42 behind mux-one may be interleaved with a similar
operation targeting device address 0x42 behind mux-two. The
- intension with such a topology would in this hypothetical example
+ intent with such a topology would in this hypothetical example
be that mux-one and mux-two should not be selected simultaneously,
but mux-locked muxes do not guarantee that in all topologies.
--
2.34.1
On 8/22/22 16:10, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
>
> "intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
> even better.
>
> Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
>
The typo error is introduced in [2/3], so it makes sense to squash this
to the errored patch.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Hi!
2022-08-22 at 11:10, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
>
> "intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
> even better.
>
> Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
Thanks for polishing my brain-dump!
Cheers,
Peter
>
> ---
>
> Changed in v2:
> - this patch is new in v2
> ---
> Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst b/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
> index 6f2da7f386fd..65ed76bc979f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ When using a mux-locked mux, be aware of the following restrictions:
> I.e. the select-transfer-deselect transaction targeting e.g. device
> address 0x42 behind mux-one may be interleaved with a similar
> operation targeting device address 0x42 behind mux-two. The
> - intension with such a topology would in this hypothetical example
> + intent with such a topology would in this hypothetical example
> be that mux-one and mux-two should not be selected simultaneously,
> but mux-locked muxes do not guarantee that in all topologies.
>
Hi Bagas,
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 20:40:56 +0700
Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/22/22 16:10, [email protected] wrote:
> > From: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
> >
> > "intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
> > even better.
> >
> > Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
> >
>
> The typo error is introduced in [2/3], so it makes sense to squash this
> to the errored patch.
Patch 2 just reformats the text. "intension" was there before patch 2
and got unmodified. But if it is useful I can send a v3 with the typo
fix in patch 1 and the other two patches following.
--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com