Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.5 495/542] docs: i2c: writing-clients: properly name the stop condition

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:49:39PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 15/02/20 07:14, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:48:07 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit 4fcb445ec688a62da9c864ab05a4bd39b0307cdc ]
>>>
>>> In I2C there is no such thing as a "stop bit". Use the proper naming: "stop
>>> condition".
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>>> Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst | 6 +++---
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
>>> index ced309b5e0cc8..3869efdf84cae 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
>>> @@ -357,9 +357,9 @@ read/written.
>>>
>>>  This sends a series of messages. Each message can be a read or write,
>>>  and they can be mixed in any way. The transactions are combined: no
>>> -stop bit is sent between transaction. The i2c_msg structure contains
>>> -for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the message
>>> -and the message data itself.
>>> +stop condition is issued between transaction. The i2c_msg structure
>>> +contains for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the
>>> +message and the message data itself.
>>>
>>>  You can read the file ``i2c-protocol`` for more information about the
>>>  actual I2C protocol.
>>
>> I wouldn't bother backporting this documentation patch to stable and
>> longterm trees. That's a minor vocabulary thing really, it does not
>> qualify.
>
>I also feel no need to have it in stable branches. Hovever it would not
>hurt, so whatever is fine for who's maintaining that branch will be fine
>for me as well.

No, you're right, this isn't stable material - I've missed it during
review and I'll drop it now. Thanks for pointing it out.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha