linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: i2c: i2c-topology: fix typo

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <72f284ef-233c-37af-a73c-b58e26361d6e@axentia.se>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 11:28:33 +0200
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: i2c: i2c-topology: fix typo

Hi!

2022-08-22 at 11:10, luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com wrote:
> From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>
> 
> "intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
> even better.
> 
> Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>

Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>

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.
>