From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>

"intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
even better.

Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>

---

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 6f2da7f386fd..65ed76bc979f 100644
--- a/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
+++ b/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ When using a mux-locked mux, be aware of the following restrictions:
   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

Hi!

2022-08-22 at 11:10, luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com wrote:
> From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
> 
> "intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
> even better.
> 
> Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>

Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>

Thanks for polishing my brain-dump!

Cheers,
Peter

> 
> ---
> 
> 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 6f2da7f386fd..65ed76bc979f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ When using a mux-locked mux, be aware of the following restrictions:
>    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.
>

On 8/22/22 16:10, luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com wrote:
> From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
> 
> "intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
> even better.
> 
> Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
> 

The typo error is introduced in [2/3], so it makes sense to squash this
to the errored patch.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Hi Bagas,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 20:40:56 +0700
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/22/22 16:10, luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com wrote:
> > From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
> > 
> > "intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
> > even better.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
> >   
> 
> The typo error is introduced in [2/3], so it makes sense to squash this
> to the errored patch.

Patch 2 just reformats the text. "intension" was there before patch 2
and got unmodified. But if it is useful I can send a v3 with the typo
fix in patch 1 and the other two patches following.

-- 
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com