Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: i801: Fix interrupt storm from SMB_ALERT signal

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:18:21AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 16:39:28 +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> > On 11/10/21 7:16 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 04:10:32PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:  
> > >>  	/*
> > >> -	 * Clear irq sources and report transaction result.
> > >> +	 * Clear remaining irq sources: Completion of last command, errors  
> > >> +	 * and the SMB_ALERT signal. SMB_ALERT status is set after signal
> > >> +	 * assertion independently is the interrupt generation blocked or not  
> > > 
> > > is --> if ?
> >
> > hmm, I don't know which one is correct or neither. Or should it be 
> > something like "independently of whether the interrupt generation is 
> > blocked or not"? Grammar polices, please help me :-)
> 
> ... independently of the interrupt generation being blocked or not.
> 
> Sounds better?
> 
> (I think your "of whether" variant is grammatically correct too, if you
> prefer that.)

For the sake of bikeshedding :-) I lean to "whether" variant, because I think
the determiner usage is decreasing over time, while its presence makes language
richer.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko