Re: [PATCH] gpio: add missing word in gpio dt binding doc

[boris brezillon <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>]

On 19/12/2013 20:13, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 15:21 +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt |    2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
>> index e2295e3..4019ce1 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
>> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ and empty GPIO flags as accepted by the "qe_pio_e" gpio-controller.
>>   2) gpio-controller nodes
>>   ------------------------
>>   
>> -Every GPIO controller node must both an empty "gpio-controller"
>> +Every GPIO controller node must contain both an empty "gpio-controller"
>>   property, and have #gpio-cells contain the size of the gpio-specifier.
>>   
>>   It might contain GPIO hog definitions. GPIO hogging is a mechanism providing
>> -- 
>> 1.7.9.5
> The context of the patch appears to contain stuff that gets
> introduced with the RFC patch you sent out after this one.  If
> this suspicion(sp?) is true, you may have to re-create the patch
> on top of something official.

Ooops. Your suspicions were true ;-).
I'll send a new patch based on a clean context.

Best Regards,

Boris
> :)  And you may want to mark this
> patch as "trivial".
>
>
> virtually yours
> Gerhard Sittig