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>
---
Changed in v3:
- moved as first patch (Bagas)
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 7cb53819778e..c9ed3b4d6085 100644
--- a/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
+++ b/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ ML2. It is not safe to build arbitrary topologies with two (or more)
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.
--
2.34.1
