Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 09:06:42 +0200
From:   Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] docs: i2c: i2c-topology: reorder sections more
 logically
Message-ID: <20220809090642.7bd2624e@booty>
In-Reply-To: <3971c298-9c9a-83a1-8dc7-5d59dd0e1a05@gmail.com>
References: <20220808141708.1021103-1-luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
        <20220808141708.1021103-8-luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
        <3971c298-9c9a-83a1-8dc7-5d59dd0e1a05@gmail.com>
Organization: Bootlin
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hello Bagas,

thanks for the prompt review!

On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 09:08:03 +0700
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/8/22 21:17, luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com wrote:
> > +Mux-locked caveats
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +When using a mux-locked mux, be aware of the following restrictions:
> > +
> > +* If you build a topology with a mux-locked mux being the parent
> > +  of a parent-locked mux, this might break the expectation from the
> > +  parent-locked mux that the root adapter is locked during the
> > +  transaction.
> > +
> > +* It is not safe to build arbitrary topologies with two (or more)
> > +  mux-locked muxes that are not siblings, when there are address
> > +  collisions between the devices on the child adapters of these
> > +  non-sibling muxes.
> > +
> > +  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
> > +  be that mux-one and mux-two should not be selected simultaneously,
> > +  but mux-locked muxes do not guarantee that in all topologies.
> > +  
> 
> These two sentences in n. 2) can be combined into a single paragraph.
> Also, did you mean s/intension/intention/?

This patch does nothing but reformatting the current text.

Definitely "intension" is a mistake that I didn't spot, I'm adding a
patch to fix that.

About the paragraph split, I have no strong opinion but I'm feeling OK
with the current layout. It splits the generic statement from the
example and IMHO helps readability. Feel free to send a patch to change
that though, if you think it is useful.

-- 
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com