On 19/12/2013 20:13, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 15:21 +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
index e2295e3..4019ce1 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ and empty GPIO flags as accepted by the "qe_pio_e" gpio-controller.
2) gpio-controller nodes
------------------------
-Every GPIO controller node must both an empty "gpio-controller"
+Every GPIO controller node must contain both an empty "gpio-controller"
property, and have #gpio-cells contain the size of the gpio-specifier.
It might contain GPIO hog definitions. GPIO hogging is a mechanism providing
--
1.7.9.5
The context of the patch appears to contain stuff that gets
introduced with the RFC patch you sent out after this one. If
this suspicion(sp?) is true, you may have to re-create the patch
on top of something official.
Ooops. Your suspicions were true ;-).
I'll send a new patch based on a clean context.
Best Regards,
Boris
:) And you may want to mark this
patch as "trivial".
virtually yours
Gerhard Sittig
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
