From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, Alexander Clouter <alex@digriz.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] cpufreq: cpufreq_governor: Demote store_sampling_rate() header to standard comment block Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:15:18 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200715081518.GA1398296@dell> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200715080236.n3gecwhidorn4rqq@vireshk-i7> On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-07-20, 08:31, Lee Jones wrote: > > I'm not sure what you mean. Kerneldoc headers are designed to be > > extracted and converted into mediums which are easy to read/browse. > > For example, see the online documentation for 'debug_object_init': > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/debug-objects.html?highlight=debug_object_init#c.debug_object_init > > > > They are generally meant to be referenced/consumed. There is even a > > script provided inside the kernel to find offending instances where > > kerneldoc headers are provided, but not *yet* referenced: > > > > `scripts/find-unused-docs.sh` > > > > HINT: There are many. > > > > There *could* be and argument to use kerneldoc *just* so you can use > > the kerneldoc checker `scripts/kernel-doc` (which is invoked by W=1 > > builds), in order to ensure the parameter descriptions are kept in > > check. > > > > However, in this case, there are no descriptions provided. So, in > > reference to my previous question, what are your reasons for wanting > > to keep kerneldoc here? > > I think the code did the right thing by keeping them as kernel doc > type comments. What we missed then is getting them used in the *.rst > documentation. > > A simple way of doing that could be just adding this to the cpu-freq > rst file, like: > > -------------------------8<------------------------- > Here are the bits from the in-source documentation: > > .. kernel-doc:: include/linux/cpufreq.h > .. kernel-doc:: drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > .. kernel-doc:: drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c > .. kernel-doc:: drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c > -------------------------8<------------------------- > > This will make the script stop complaining about these. This will stop `scripts/find-unused-docs.sh` from mentioning these files as an offender, but `scripts/kernel-doc` and by extension W=1 builds (which is the point of this patch-set) will still complain. Before you add the lines above, you need to provide descriptions for each of the function parameters or else they will not reach the required standards expected of kerneldoc. My suggestion would be to take this (and the other) patch and subsequently provide your own set i) providing the required parameter descriptions ii) re-promoting the comment blocks to kerneldoc and iii) adding the aforementioned lines to the *.rst file(s). > But the layout of things wont' be very nice right now. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Cc: Alexander Clouter <alex@digriz.org.uk>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] cpufreq: cpufreq_governor: Demote store_sampling_rate() header to standard comment block Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:15:18 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200715081518.GA1398296@dell> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200715080236.n3gecwhidorn4rqq@vireshk-i7> On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-07-20, 08:31, Lee Jones wrote: > > I'm not sure what you mean. Kerneldoc headers are designed to be > > extracted and converted into mediums which are easy to read/browse. > > For example, see the online documentation for 'debug_object_init': > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/debug-objects.html?highlight=debug_object_init#c.debug_object_init > > > > They are generally meant to be referenced/consumed. There is even a > > script provided inside the kernel to find offending instances where > > kerneldoc headers are provided, but not *yet* referenced: > > > > `scripts/find-unused-docs.sh` > > > > HINT: There are many. > > > > There *could* be and argument to use kerneldoc *just* so you can use > > the kerneldoc checker `scripts/kernel-doc` (which is invoked by W=1 > > builds), in order to ensure the parameter descriptions are kept in > > check. > > > > However, in this case, there are no descriptions provided. So, in > > reference to my previous question, what are your reasons for wanting > > to keep kerneldoc here? > > I think the code did the right thing by keeping them as kernel doc > type comments. What we missed then is getting them used in the *.rst > documentation. > > A simple way of doing that could be just adding this to the cpu-freq > rst file, like: > > -------------------------8<------------------------- > Here are the bits from the in-source documentation: > > .. kernel-doc:: include/linux/cpufreq.h > .. kernel-doc:: drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > .. kernel-doc:: drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c > .. kernel-doc:: drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c > -------------------------8<------------------------- > > This will make the script stop complaining about these. This will stop `scripts/find-unused-docs.sh` from mentioning these files as an offender, but `scripts/kernel-doc` and by extension W=1 builds (which is the point of this patch-set) will still complain. Before you add the lines above, you need to provide descriptions for each of the function parameters or else they will not reach the required standards expected of kerneldoc. My suggestion would be to take this (and the other) patch and subsequently provide your own set i) providing the required parameter descriptions ii) re-promoting the comment blocks to kerneldoc and iii) adding the aforementioned lines to the *.rst file(s). > But the layout of things wont' be very nice right now. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-15 8:15 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 150+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-07-14 14:50 [PATCH 00/13] Rid W=1 warnings in CPUFreq Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 01/13] cpufreq: freq_table: Demote obvious misuse of kerneldoc to standard comment blocks Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 2:44 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 2:44 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 02/13] cpufreq: cpufreq: Demote lots of function headers unworthy of kerneldoc status Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 2:49 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 2:49 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 6:47 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:47 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 7:09 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 7:09 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 03/13] cpufreq: cpufreq_governor: Demote store_sampling_rate() header to standard comment block Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 2:52 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 2:52 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 6:45 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:45 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 7:08 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 7:08 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 7:31 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 7:31 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 8:02 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 8:02 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 8:15 ` Lee Jones [this message] 2020-07-15 8:15 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 04/13] cpufreq: sti-cpufreq: Fix some formatting and misspelling issues Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 2:58 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 2:58 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 05/13] cpufreq/arch: powerpc: pasemi: Move prototypes to shared header Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 3:07 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:07 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:07 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:49 ` Olof Johansson 2020-07-15 3:49 ` Olof Johansson 2020-07-15 3:49 ` Olof Johansson 2020-07-15 3:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:51 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 6:36 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:36 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:36 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:39 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 6:39 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 6:39 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:26 ` Olof Johansson 2020-07-15 3:26 ` Olof Johansson 2020-07-15 3:26 ` Olof Johansson 2020-07-15 6:33 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:33 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:33 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:46 ` Olof Johansson 2020-07-15 6:46 ` Olof Johansson 2020-07-15 6:46 ` Olof Johansson 2020-07-15 7:33 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 7:33 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 7:33 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 06/13] cpufreq: powernv-cpufreq: Functions only used in call-backs should be static Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 3:07 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:07 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:07 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 07/13] cpufreq: powernv-cpufreq: Fix a bunch of kerneldoc related issues Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 3:09 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:09 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:09 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 08/13] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Take 'dummy' principle one stage further Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 16:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 16:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 16:20 ` Robin Murphy 2020-07-14 16:20 ` Robin Murphy 2020-07-14 21:00 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 21:00 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 09/13] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Remove unused ID structs Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 15:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 15:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 21:03 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 21:03 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 3:24 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:24 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:27 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:27 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 6:37 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:37 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 11:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-15 11:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-15 11:34 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 11:34 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 11:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-15 11:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-15 11:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 11:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 12:07 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 12:07 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 12:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-15 12:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-15 12:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-15 12:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-15 12:16 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 12:16 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 12:30 ` Robin Murphy 2020-07-15 12:30 ` Robin Murphy 2020-07-15 12:38 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 12:38 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 10/13] cpufreq: powernow-k8: Make use of known set but not used variables Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 17:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 17:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 21:01 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 21:01 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 11/13] cpufreq: pcc-cpufreq: Remove unused ID structs Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 17:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 17:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 12/13] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Supply struct attribute description for get_aperf_mperf_shift() Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 16:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 16:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 21:03 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 21:03 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 12:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-15 12:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-07-14 14:50 ` [PATCH 13/13] cpufreq: amd_freq_sensitivity: Remove unused ID structs Lee Jones 2020-07-14 14:50 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 17:15 ` Kim Phillips 2020-07-14 17:15 ` Kim Phillips 2020-07-14 21:02 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 21:02 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-14 21:13 ` Kim Phillips 2020-07-14 21:13 ` Kim Phillips 2020-07-15 6:47 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:47 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 3:36 ` [PATCH 00/13] Rid W=1 warnings in CPUFreq Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 3:36 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 6:32 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:32 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 6:38 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 6:38 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-07-15 7:34 ` Lee Jones 2020-07-15 7:34 ` Lee Jones
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20200715081518.GA1398296@dell \ --to=lee.jones@linaro.org \ --cc=alex@digriz.org.uk \ --cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ --cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \ --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.