[PATCH] OMAP2+: powerdomain: fix typo: lose context --> loose context

[PATCH] OMAP2+: powerdomain: fix typo: lose context --> loose context

[Kevin Hilman]

Before we get any users of this function, fix the name (and comments)
to use loose instead of lose.

Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
---
Applies to v2.6.39-rc4

 arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c |    6 +++---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
index 9af0847..ec3423f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
@@ -960,18 +960,18 @@ u32 pwrdm_get_context_loss_count(struct powerdomain *pwrdm)
 }
 
 /**
- * pwrdm_can_ever_lose_context - can this powerdomain ever lose context?
+ * pwrdm_can_ever_loose_context - can this powerdomain ever loose context?
  * @pwrdm: struct powerdomain *
  *
  * Given a struct powerdomain * @pwrdm, returns 1 if the powerdomain
- * can lose either memory or logic context or if @pwrdm is invalid, or
+ * can loose either memory or logic context or if @pwrdm is invalid, or
  * returns 0 otherwise.  This function is not concerned with how the
  * powerdomain registers are programmed (i.e., to go off or not); it's
  * concerned with whether it's ever possible for this powerdomain to
  * go off while some other part of the chip is active.  This function
  * assumes that every powerdomain can go to either ON or INACTIVE.
  */
-bool pwrdm_can_ever_lose_context(struct powerdomain *pwrdm)
+bool pwrdm_can_ever_loose_context(struct powerdomain *pwrdm)
 {
 	int i;
 
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h
index d23d979..95d5b9e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h
@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ int pwrdm_pre_transition(void);
 int pwrdm_post_transition(void);
 int pwrdm_set_lowpwrstchange(struct powerdomain *pwrdm);
 u32 pwrdm_get_context_loss_count(struct powerdomain *pwrdm);
-bool pwrdm_can_ever_lose_context(struct powerdomain *pwrdm);
+bool pwrdm_can_ever_loose_context(struct powerdomain *pwrdm);
 
 extern void omap2xxx_powerdomains_init(void);
 extern void omap3xxx_powerdomains_init(void);
-- 
1.7.4

Re: [PATCH] OMAP2+: powerdomain: fix typo: lose context --> loose context

[Paul Walmsley]

Hi Kevin,

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:

> Before we get any users of this function, fix the name (and comments)
> to use loose instead of lose.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
> ---
> Applies to v2.6.39-rc4
> 
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c |    6 +++---
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
> index 9af0847..ec3423f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
> @@ -960,18 +960,18 @@ u32 pwrdm_get_context_loss_count(struct powerdomain *pwrdm)
>  }
>  
>  /**
> - * pwrdm_can_ever_lose_context - can this powerdomain ever lose context?
> + * pwrdm_can_ever_loose_context - can this powerdomain ever loose context?

'lose' is correct in this case,. It's derived from the idiom 'context 
loss'.  more broadly, 'loose' implies a strong sense of agency on the part 
of whatever is doing the 'loosing,' whereas 'lose' does not (it's the PRCM 
that causes the powerdomain to lose context, not the powerdomain itself - 
the powerdomain's logic/memory context is subject to the PRCM's whim)

- Paul

Re: [PATCH] OMAP2+: powerdomain: fix typo: lose context --> loose context

[Kevin Hilman]

Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> writes:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>
>> Before we get any users of this function, fix the name (and comments)
>> to use loose instead of lose.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
>> ---
>> Applies to v2.6.39-rc4
>> 
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c |    6 +++---
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h |    2 +-
>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
>> index 9af0847..ec3423f 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
>> @@ -960,18 +960,18 @@ u32 pwrdm_get_context_loss_count(struct powerdomain *pwrdm)
>>  }
>>  
>>  /**
>> - * pwrdm_can_ever_lose_context - can this powerdomain ever lose context?
>> + * pwrdm_can_ever_loose_context - can this powerdomain ever loose context?
>
> 'lose' is correct in this case,. It's derived from the idiom 'context 
> loss'.  more broadly, 'loose' implies a strong sense of agency on the part 
> of whatever is doing the 'loosing,' whereas 'lose' does not (it's the PRCM 
> that causes the powerdomain to lose context, not the powerdomain itself - 
> the powerdomain's logic/memory context is subject to the PRCM's whim)

After a dictionary lookup, I guess you're right.  I guess I've been
spelling that wrong for a while, and it seems I'm not the only one:

  http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/looselose.html

Thanks for the English lesson.  ;)

Kevin