Re: [PATCH 02/13] ACPI: CPPC: Fix doxygen comments

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 02:20:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 8:09 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Clang complains about doxygen comments too with W=1 in the build.
> >
> >   | drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c:560: warning: Function parameter or member
> >   |     'pcc_ss_id' not described in 'pcc_data_alloc'
> >   | drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c:1343: warning: Function parameter or member
> >   |     'cpu_num' not described in 'cppc_get_transition_latency'
> >
> > Fix it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > index a4d4eebba1da..eb5685167d19 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > @@ -562,6 +562,8 @@ bool __weak cpc_ffh_supported(void)
> >  /**
> >   * pcc_data_alloc() - Allocate the pcc_data memory for pcc subspace
> >   *
>
> I would drop this empty line (and analogously below).
>

Sure

> > + * @pcc_ss_id: PCC Subspace channel identifier
> > + *
> >   * Check and allocate the cppc_pcc_data memory.
> >   * In some processor configurations it is possible that same subspace
> >   * is shared between multiple CPUs. This is seen especially in CPUs
> > @@ -1347,10 +1349,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_set_perf);
> >  /**
> >   * cppc_get_transition_latency - returns frequency transition latency in ns
> >   *
> > + * @cpu_num: Logical index of the CPU for which latencty is requested
> > + *
> >   * ACPI CPPC does not explicitly specify how a platform can specify the
> >   * transition latency for performance change requests. The closest we have
> >   * is the timing information from the PCCT tables which provides the info
> >   * on the number and frequency of PCC commands the platform can handle.
> > + *
> > + * Returns: frequency transition latency on success or CPUFREQ_ETERNAL on
> > + * failure
> 
> Is this change needed?  The one-line summary already says this.
>

Right, not required. I must have got confused with other place that expected
return summary.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep