On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:49:39PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
Hi,
On 15/02/20 07:14, Jean Delvare wrote:
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.
I also feel no need to have it in stable branches. Hovever it would not
hurt, so whatever is fine for who's maintaining that branch will be fine
for me as well.
No, you're right, this isn't stable material - I've missed it during
review and I'll drop it now. Thanks for pointing it out.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
