leandrof/u-boot
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

doc: fix typos

Browse Source 
Fix a few typos spot during a first read of the contribution process.

Signed-off-by: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@savoirfairelinux.com>
Reviewed-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com>
This commit is contained in:
Maxim Cournoyer 2022-12-16 21:09:40 -05:00 committed by Heinrich Schuchardt
parent 9bd3d354a1
commit e7d962bc3c
3 changed files with 18 additions and 18 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
doc/develop/process.rst
View File

@ -165,8 +165,8 @@ document.
<https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes>`_
and similar additional tags.
* Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptible according to
the `Reveiwer's statement of oversight
* Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to
the `Reviewer's statement of oversight
<https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#reviewer-s-statement-of-oversight>`_.
A *Reviewed-by:* tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
appropriate modification of the code without any remaining serious technical
@ -193,8 +193,8 @@ document.
* Cc: If a person should have the opportunity to comment on a patch, you may
optionally add a *Cc:* tag to the patch. Git tools (git send-email) will then
automatically arrange that they receives a copy of the patch when you submit it
to the mainling list. This is the only tag which might be added without an
automatically arrange that they receives a copy of the patch when you submit
it to the mailing list. This is the only tag which might be added without an
explicit action by the person it names. This tag documents that potentially
interested parties have been included in the discussion.
For example, when your change affects a specific board or driver, then makes
@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ like this:
#. The responsible custodian inspects this patch, especially for:
#. The commit message is useful, descriptive and makes correct and
appropraite usage of required *git tags*.
appropriate usage of required *git tags*.
#. :doc:`codingstyle`
@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ like this:
workflows and environments however.
#. Although a custodian is supposed to perform their own tests it is a
well-known and accepted fact that they needs help from other developers who
well-known and accepted fact that they need help from other developers who
- for example - have access to the required hardware or other relevant
environments. Custodians are expected to ask for assistance with testing
when required.

18
doc/develop/sending_patches.rst
View File

@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ LWN article `How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel
Using patman
------------
You can use a tool called patman to prepare, check and sent patches. It creates
change logs, cover letters and patch notes. It also simplified the process of
You can use a tool called patman to prepare, check and send patches. It creates
change logs, cover letters and patch notes. It also simplifies the process of
sending multiple versions of a series.
See more details at :doc:`patman`.
@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ General Patch Submission Rules
past commits might have input to your change, so also CC them if you think
they may have feedback.
* Patches should always contain exactly one complete logical change, i. e.
* Patches should always contain exactly one complete logical change, i.e.
* Changes that contain different, unrelated modifications shall be submitted
as *separate* patches, one patch per changeset.
@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ General Patch Submission Rules
as such -- that *precedes* your substantive patch.
* For minor modifications (e.g. changed arguments of a function call),
adhere to the present codingstyle of the module. Relating checkpatch
adhere to the present coding style of the module. Relating checkpatch
warnings can be ignored in this case. A respective note in the commit or
cover letter why they are ignored is desired.
@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ General Patch Submission Rules
visible as headline of your commit message. Make sure the subject does not
exceed 60 characters or so.
* The start of the subject should be a meaningfull tag (arm:, ppc:, tegra:,
* The start of the subject should be a meaningful tag (arm:, ppc:, tegra:,
net:, ext2:, etc)
* Include the string "PATCH" in the Subject: line of your message, e. g.
@ -247,14 +247,14 @@ When re-posting such a new version of your patch(es), please always make sure
to observe the following rules.
* Make an appropriate note that this is a re-submission in the subject line,
eg. "[PATCH v2] Add support for feature X". ``git format-patch
e.g. "[PATCH v2] Add support for feature X". ``git format-patch
--subject-prefix="PATCH v2"`` can be used in this case (see the example
below).
* Please make sure to keep a "change log", i. e. a description of what you have
* Please make sure to keep a "change log", i.e. a description of what you have
changed compared to previous versions of this patch. This change log should
be added below the "---" line in the patch, which starts the "comment
section", i. e. which contains text that does not get included into the
section", i.e. which contains text that does not get included into the
actual commit message.
Note: it is *not* sufficient to provide a change log in some cover letter
that gets sent as a separate message with the patch series. The reason is
@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ Notes
2. All code must follow the :doc:`codingstyle` requirements.
3. Before sending the patch, you *must* run some form of local testing.
Submitting a patch that does not build or function correct is a mistake. For
Submitting a patch that does not build or function correctly is a mistake. For
non-trivial patches, either building a number of platforms locally or making
use of :doc:`ci_testing` is strongly encouraged in order to avoid problems
that can be found when attempting to merge the patch.

6
doc/develop/system_configuration.rst
View File

@ -86,12 +86,12 @@ When to use each mechanism
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While there are some cases where it should be fairly obvious where to use each
mechanism, as for example a command would done via Kconfig, a new I2C driver
mechanism, as for example a command would be done via Kconfig, a new I2C driver
should use Kconfig and be configured via driver model and a header of values
generated by an external tool should be ``CFG``, there will be cases where it's
less clear and one needs to take care when implementing it. In general,
configuration *options* should be done in Kconfig and configuration *settings*
should done in driver model or ``CFG``. Let us discuss things to keep in mind
should be done in driver model or ``CFG``. Let us discuss things to keep in mind
when picking the appropriate mechanism.
A thing to keep in mind is that we have a strong preference for using Kconfig as
@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ to use Kconfig in this case, it would result in using calculated rather than
constructed values, resulting in less clear code. Consider the example of a set
of register values for a memory controller. Defining this as a series of logical
ORs and shifts based on other defines is more clear than the Kconfig entry that
set the calculated value alone.
sets the calculated value alone.
When it has been determined that the practical solution is to utilize the
``CFG`` mechanism, the next decision is where to place these settings. It is