[PATCH] [trivial] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mux: Spelling s/required is/required if/

[PATCH] [trivial] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mux: Spelling s/required is/required if/

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt
index 212e6779dc5c0caf..b38f58a1c8784184 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt
@@ -6,10 +6,10 @@ multiplexer/switch will have one child node for each child bus.
 
 Optional properties:
 - #address-cells = <1>;
-   This property is required is the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
+   This property is required if the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
 
 - #size-cells = <0>;
-   This property is required is the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
+   This property is required if the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
 
 - i2c-mux
    For i2c multiplexers/switches that have child nodes that are a mixture
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] [trivial] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mux: Spelling s/required is/required if/

[Peter Rosin]

On 2017-09-21 14:52, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas-gXvu3+zWzMSzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>

Yes, this is trivial, both the patch and my complaint, but can you please
add a "body of explanation" as suggested by submitting-patches in its topic
"The canonical patch format"?

Maintainers accepting empty patch descriptions are publicly shamed, and
I do not wish to be in that boat, sorry...

Cheers,
Peter

> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt
> index 212e6779dc5c0caf..b38f58a1c8784184 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt
> @@ -6,10 +6,10 @@ multiplexer/switch will have one child node for each child bus.
>  
>  Optional properties:
>  - #address-cells = <1>;
> -   This property is required is the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
> +   This property is required if the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
>  
>  - #size-cells = <0>;
> -   This property is required is the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
> +   This property is required if the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
>  
>  - i2c-mux
>     For i2c multiplexers/switches that have child nodes that are a mixture
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] [trivial] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mux: Spelling s/required is/required if/

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Peter,

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> wrote:
> On 2017-09-21 14:52, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
>
> Yes, this is trivial, both the patch and my complaint, but can you please
> add a "body of explanation" as suggested by submitting-patches in its topic
> "The canonical patch format"?

A patch should provide the answer to 3 questions: what?, why?, and how?,
and IMHO all of these have been answered.
What more can I say, besides duplicating the one-line summary?

> Maintainers accepting empty patch descriptions are publicly shamed, and
> I do not wish to be in that boat, sorry...

Are they? AFAIK only if they apply patches that need more explanation.

>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt
>> index 212e6779dc5c0caf..b38f58a1c8784184 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux.txt
>> @@ -6,10 +6,10 @@ multiplexer/switch will have one child node for each child bus.
>>
>>  Optional properties:
>>  - #address-cells = <1>;
>> -   This property is required is the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
>> +   This property is required if the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
>>
>>  - #size-cells = <0>;
>> -   This property is required is the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
>> +   This property is required if the i2c-mux child node does not exist.
>>
>>  - i2c-mux
>>     For i2c multiplexers/switches that have child nodes that are a mixture
>>

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH] [trivial] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mux: Spelling s/required is/required if/

[Peter Rosin]

On 2017-09-25 17:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> wrote:
>> On 2017-09-21 14:52, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
>>
>> Yes, this is trivial, both the patch and my complaint, but can you please
>> add a "body of explanation" as suggested by submitting-patches in its topic
>> "The canonical patch format"?
> 
> A patch should provide the answer to 3 questions: what?, why?, and how?,
> and IMHO all of these have been answered.
> What more can I say, besides duplicating the one-line summary?
> 
>> Maintainers accepting empty patch descriptions are publicly shamed, and
>> I do not wish to be in that boat, sorry...
> 
> Are they? AFAIK only if they apply patches that need more explanation.

There was an LWN article a while back that counted the number of patches
with an empty body and presented a table with top "offenders".

But ok, I'll just fix it up myself as I apply it. Hopefully w/o adding any
further speeling mitsaeks..,.

Cheers,
Peter