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

[Sasha Levin]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > [ 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  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