From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9C4C07E9C for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88322613B2 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232280AbhGNQJ7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:09:59 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:36544 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230427AbhGNQJ6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:09:58 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35334D6E; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 09:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e120937-lin (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7669C3F7D8; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 09:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:07:02 +0100 From: Cristian Marussi To: Sudeep Holla Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Jassi Brar Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] ACPI: CPPC: Fix doxygen comments Message-ID: <20210714160702.GB6592@e120937-lin> References: <20210708180851.2311192-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20210708180851.2311192-3-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20210714151210.or4kburfmcsjo3u2@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210714151210.or4kburfmcsjo3u2@bogus> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 04:12:10PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > 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 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 > > > --- > > > 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. > I think kernel-doc complains if no Return: (not Returns:) doxygen clause is provided while describing a function which do return some values. (..even though the info is clearly duplicated as it is now in the one-line summary) Thanks, Cristian > -- > Regards, > Sudeep