On 2020-08-19 22:53, Raphael Norwitz wrote:
The irq_domain documentation states that "Here the interrupt number
loose all kind of correspondence to hardware interrupt numbers:...".
It's clear from the context that the author means to use "loses"
instead
of "loose". To avoid future confusion, this change fixes the
aforementioned wording.
Signed-off-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/core-api/irq/irq-domain.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/irq/irq-domain.rst
b/Documentation/core-api/irq/irq-domain.rst
index 096db12..eba5e41 100644
--- a/Documentation/core-api/irq/irq-domain.rst
+++ b/Documentation/core-api/irq/irq-domain.rst
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ such as GPIO controllers avoid reimplementing
identical callback
mechanisms as the IRQ core system by modelling their interrupt
handlers as irqchips, i.e. in effect cascading interrupt controllers.
-Here the interrupt number loose all kind of correspondence to
+Here the interrupt number loses all kind of correspondence to
hardware interrupt numbers: whereas in the past, IRQ numbers could
be chosen so they matched the hardware IRQ line into the root
interrupt controller (i.e. the component actually fireing the
Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
