Ping - looks like this was never applied? On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 6:23 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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...
