Hi,
On 7/25/25 6:49 AM, Ranganath V N wrote:
> Corrected a few spelling errors and improved the phrasing
>
> Signed-off-by: Ranganath V N <vnranganath.20@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/arch/loongarch/irq-chip-model.rst | 4 ++--
> Documentation/arch/x86/cpuinfo.rst | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/arch/loongarch/irq-chip-model.rst b/Documentation/arch/loongarch/irq-chip-model.rst
> index a7ecce11e445..8f5c3345109e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arch/loongarch/irq-chip-model.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arch/loongarch/irq-chip-model.rst
> @@ -139,13 +139,13 @@ Feature EXTIOI_HAS_INT_ENCODE is part of standard EIOINTC. If it is 1, it
> indicates that CPU Interrupt Pin selection can be normal method rather than
> bitmap method, so interrupt can be routed to IP0 - IP15.
>
> -Feature EXTIOI_HAS_CPU_ENCODE is entension of V-EIOINTC. If it is 1, it
> +Feature EXTIOI_HAS_CPU_ENCODE is extension of V-EIOINTC. If it is 1, it
ack
> indicates that CPU selection can be normal method rather than bitmap method,
> so interrupt can be routed to CPU0 - CPU255.
>
> EXTIOI_VIRT_CONFIG
> ------------------
> -This register is read-write register, for compatibility intterupt routed uses
> +This register is read-write register, for compatibility interrupt routed uses
ack
> the default method which is the same with standard EIOINTC. If the bit is set
> with 1, it indicated HW to use normal method rather than bitmap method.
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/arch/x86/cpuinfo.rst b/Documentation/arch/x86/cpuinfo.rst
> index dd8b7806944e..3d61b9d06f7b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arch/x86/cpuinfo.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arch/x86/cpuinfo.rst
> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ The list of feature flags in /proc/cpuinfo is not complete and
> represents an ill-fated attempt from long time ago to put feature flags
> in an easy to find place for userspace.
>
> -However, the amount of feature flags is growing by the CPU generation,
> +However, the number of feature flags is growing with the CPU generation,
I don't think this needs to be changed, but if so, I would say:
with each CPU generation,
> leading to unparseable and unwieldy /proc/cpuinfo.
>
> What is more, those feature flags do not even need to be in that file
--
~Randy
