mtd: nand: fix a typo in a comment line

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
---
 drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 04:26:26PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> index 9d01c4d..33ec641 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> @@ -3607,7 +3607,7 @@ static struct nand_flash_dev *nand_get_flash_type(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>  
>  	chip->onfi_version = 0;
>  	if (!type->name || !type->pagesize) {
> -		/* Check is chip is ONFI compliant */
> +		/* Check if the chip is ONFI compliant */

Really? We don't spell out "the chip" every time we refer to "chip". I
think this is just fine as-is.

>  		if (nand_flash_detect_onfi(mtd, chip, &busw))
>  			goto ident_done;
>  

Regards,
Brian

Hi Brian,


On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:23:11 -0700
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 04:26:26PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > index 9d01c4d..33ec641 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > @@ -3607,7 +3607,7 @@ static struct nand_flash_dev *nand_get_flash_type(struct mtd_info *mtd,
> >  
> >  	chip->onfi_version = 0;
> >  	if (!type->name || !type->pagesize) {
> > -		/* Check is chip is ONFI compliant */
> > +		/* Check if the chip is ONFI compliant */
> 
> Really? We don't spell out "the chip" every time we refer to "chip". I
> think this is just fine as-is.


I am fixing two things here.

 [1] Replace "Check is"  with "Check if"
 [2] Add "the"

Do you think that is fine as-is  for both items?

My main motivation is to fix [1].
Since I am not a native speaker, I am not sure about [2].

I am just following another comment a few lines below:
  /* Check if the chip is JEDEC compliant */



                /* Check is chip is ONFI compliant */
                if (nand_flash_detect_onfi(mtd, chip, &busw))
                        goto ident_done;

                /* Check if the chip is JEDEC compliant */     <------
                if (nand_flash_detect_jedec(mtd, chip, &busw))
                        goto ident_done;
        }





Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 06:59:16PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:23:11 -0700 Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 04:26:26PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > index 9d01c4d..33ec641 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > @@ -3607,7 +3607,7 @@ static struct nand_flash_dev *nand_get_flash_type(struct mtd_info *mtd,
> > >  
> > >  	chip->onfi_version = 0;
> > >  	if (!type->name || !type->pagesize) {
> > > -		/* Check is chip is ONFI compliant */
> > > +		/* Check if the chip is ONFI compliant */
> > 
> > Really? We don't spell out "the chip" every time we refer to "chip". I
> > think this is just fine as-is.
> 
> I am fixing two things here.
...

My apologies. Apparently I can't tell the difference between "is" and
"if". This patch is fine!

Pushed to l2-mtd.git!

Thanks,
Brian