Documentation was missing for last_cs_index_mask, this was shown by
a warning in make htmldocs.

I have based the documentation off the docs for cs_index_mask, given
that they should be similar.

This is my first patch, so I hope I did everything right, please let
me know if I need to change something, and I shall endevour to do it
properly.

Signed-off-by: Ruben Wauters <rubenru09@aol.com>
---
 include/linux/spi/spi.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/spi/spi.h b/include/linux/spi/spi.h
index c459809efee4..ed941e65791a 100644
--- a/include/linux/spi/spi.h
+++ b/include/linux/spi/spi.h
@@ -453,6 +453,8 @@ extern struct spi_device *spi_new_ancillary_device(struct spi_device *spi, u8 ch
  * @last_cs_mode_high: was (mode & SPI_CS_HIGH) true on the last call to set_cs.
  * @last_cs: the last chip_select that is recorded by set_cs, -1 on non chip
  *           selected
+ * @last_cs_index_mask: the last active chip select bit masks in the chip select
+ *                      array
  * @xfer_completion: used by core transfer_one_message()
  * @busy: message pump is busy
  * @running: message pump is running
-- 
2.40.1

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 07:41:05PM +0100, Ruben Wauters wrote:

> This is my first patch, so I hope I did everything right, please let
> me know if I need to change something, and I shall endevour to do it
> properly.

Everything looks good, only issue I can see is that this question (which
is adminstrative stuff rather than part of the changelog) should have
gone after the --- below:

> 
> Signed-off-by: Ruben Wauters <rubenru09@aol.com>
> ---

so that tooling can automatically remove it when applying.

However a patch for this issue has already been applied but not yet
merged into Linus' tree.

On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 20:09 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 07:41:05PM +0100, Ruben Wauters wrote:
> 
> > This is my first patch, so I hope I did everything right, please
> > let
> > me know if I need to change something, and I shall endevour to do
> > it
> > properly.
> 
> Everything looks good, only issue I can see is that this question
> (which
> is adminstrative stuff rather than part of the changelog) should have
> gone after the --- below:
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ruben Wauters <rubenru09@aol.com>
> > ---
> 
> so that tooling can automatically remove it when applying.
> 
> However a patch for this issue has already been applied but not yet
> merged into Linus' tree.

My apologies, I should have checked before submitting the patch, will
do this in the future, and noted on the message, will also keep that in
mind.