Hi! 2022-08-22 at 11:10, luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > "intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems > even better. > > Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. >
