Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: i2c: i2c-topology: fix typo

[Peter Rosin]

Hi!

2022-08-22 at 11:10, luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> "intension" should have probably been "intention", however "intent" seems
> even better.
> 
> Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks for polishing my brain-dump!

Cheers,
Peter

> 
> ---
> 
> Changed in v2:
> - this patch is new in v2
> ---
>  Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst b/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
> index 6f2da7f386fd..65ed76bc979f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology.rst
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ When using a mux-locked mux, be aware of the following restrictions:
>    I.e. the select-transfer-deselect transaction targeting e.g. device
>    address 0x42 behind mux-one may be interleaved with a similar
>    operation targeting device address 0x42 behind mux-two. The
> -  intension with such a topology would in this hypothetical example
> +  intent with such a topology would in this hypothetical example
>    be that mux-one and mux-two should not be selected simultaneously,
>    but mux-locked muxes do not guarantee that in all topologies.
>