Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] i2c: designware: Cleaning comments and formatation | From | Jarkko Nikula <> | Date | Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:08:06 +0200 |
| |
On 12/07/2016 07:55 PM, Luis Oliveira wrote: > - Missspelling, comment formatation and fix a string of > the existing code > > Signed-off-by: Luis Oliveira <lolivei@synopsys.com> > --- > Changes V3->V4: (Andy Shevchenko) > - created a commit message > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c | 2 +- > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c | 10 ++++++---- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c > index 41b38d8b8732..838ef662d2c8 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ static char *abort_sources[] = { > [ABRT_TXDATA_NOACK] = > "data not acknowledged", > [ABRT_GCALL_NOACK] = > - "no acknowledgement for a general call", > + "no acknowledgment for a general call",
I'm not a native speaker but are both acknowledgement and acknowledgment ok? I.e. is there need to change?
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c > index 1c7f82bb2513..442bc5ce6d47 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c > @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ int i2c_dw_init_slave(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev) > /* Configure register access mode 16bit */ > dev->accessor_flags |= ACCESS_16BIT; > } else if (reg != DW_IC_COMP_TYPE_VALUE) { > - dev_err(dev->dev, "Unknown Synopsys component type: " > - "0x%08x\n", reg); > + dev_err(dev->dev, > + "Unknown Synopsys component type: 0x%08x\n", reg); > i2c_dw_release_lock(dev); > return -ENODEV; > } > @@ -181,8 +181,10 @@ int i2c_dw_reg_slave(struct i2c_client *slave) > return -EBUSY; > if (slave->flags & I2C_CLIENT_TEN) > return -EAFNOSUPPORT; > - /* set slave address in the IC_SAR register, > - * the address to which the DW_apb_i2c responds */ > + /* > + * set slave address in the IC_SAR register, > + * the address to which the DW_apb_i2c responds > + */
These two should be done already in the patch 4/5 since it introduced the lines that you are changing here.
-- Jarkko
| |