[PATCH 46/53] docs: arm64: arm-acpi.rst: avoid using UTF-8 chars

Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-05-10T10:38:47Z

While UTF-8 characters can be used at the Linux documentation,
the best is to use them only when ASCII doesn't offer a good replacement.
So, replace the occurences of the following UTF-8 characters:

- U+2019 ('’'): RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
---
Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.rst | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.rst b/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.rst
index 47ecb9930dde..ceb109ff82aa 100644
--- a/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.rst
+++ b/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.rst
@@ -36,12 +36,12 @@ of the summary text almost directly, to be honest.

The short form of the rationale for ACPI on ARM is:

-- ACPI’s byte code (AML) allows the platform to encode hardware behavior,
+- ACPI's byte code (AML) allows the platform to encode hardware behavior,
while DT explicitly does not support this. For hardware vendors, being
able to encode behavior is a key tool used in supporting operating
system releases on new hardware.

-- ACPI’s OSPM defines a power management model that constrains what the
+- ACPI's OSPM defines a power management model that constrains what the
platform is allowed to do into a specific model, while still providing
flexibility in hardware design.

@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ Key to the use of ACPI is the support model. For servers in general, the
responsibility for hardware behaviour cannot solely be the domain of the
kernel, but rather must be split between the platform and the kernel, in
order to allow for orderly change over time. ACPI frees the OS from needing
-to understand all the minute details of the hardware so that the OS doesn’t
+to understand all the minute details of the hardware so that the OS doesn't
need to be ported to each and every device individually. It allows the
hardware vendors to take responsibility for power management behaviour without
depending on an OS release cycle which is not under their control.
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ in place. DT does exactly what Linux needs it to when working with vertically
integrated devices, but there are no good processes for supporting what the
server vendors need. Linux could potentially get there with DT, but doing so
really just duplicates something that already works. ACPI already does what
-the hardware vendors need, Microsoft won’t collaborate on DT, and hardware
+the hardware vendors need, Microsoft won't collaborate on DT, and hardware
vendors would still end up providing two completely separate firmware
interfaces -- one for Linux and one for Windows.

--
2.30.2