The proper name for physical function capability is 'phys_function', not
'physical_function'. Likewise, a virtual function capability is
'virt_functions' rather than 'virtual_function'.

Signed-off-by: Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma@redhat.com>
---
 docs/formatnode.html.in | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/docs/formatnode.html.in b/docs/formatnode.html.in
index c2a8f8fb7a..7dcd3638ff 100644
--- a/docs/formatnode.html.in
+++ b/docs/formatnode.html.in
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@
                 exists, it has a mandatory <code>type</code> attribute
                 which will be set to:
                 <dl>
-                  <dt><code>physical_function</code></dt>
+                  <dt><code>phys_function</code></dt>
                   <dd>
                     That means there will be a single <code>address</code>
                     subelement which contains the PCI address of the SRIOV
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@
                     (and this device is, by implication, an SRIOV Virtual
                     Function (VF)).
                   </dd>
-                  <dt><code>virtual_function</code></dt>
+                  <dt><code>virt_functions</code></dt>
                   <dd>
                     In this case this device is an SRIOV PF, and the capability
                     element will have a list of <code>address</code>
-- 
2.21.3

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:09:34PM -0500, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> The proper name for physical function capability is 'phys_function', not
> 'physical_function'. Likewise, a virtual function capability is
> 'virt_functions' rather than 'virtual_function'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma@redhat.com>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Erik Skultety <eskultet@redhat.com>