On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:48:07 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > [ Upstream commit 4fcb445ec688a62da9c864ab05a4bd39b0307cdc ] > > In I2C there is no such thing as a "stop bit". Use the proper naming: "stop > condition". > > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst > index ced309b5e0cc8..3869efdf84cae 100644 > --- a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst > +++ b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst > @@ -357,9 +357,9 @@ read/written. > > This sends a series of messages. Each message can be a read or write, > and they can be mixed in any way. The transactions are combined: no > -stop bit is sent between transaction. The i2c_msg structure contains > -for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the message > -and the message data itself. > +stop condition is issued between transaction. The i2c_msg structure > +contains for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the > +message and the message data itself. > > You can read the file ``i2c-protocol`` for more information about the > actual I2C protocol. I wouldn't bother backporting this documentation patch to stable and longterm trees. That's a minor vocabulary thing really, it does not qualify. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
