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=-14.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 98904C11F66 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:20:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7652961003 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:20:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239330AbhGNMXJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:23:09 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f178.google.com ([209.85.167.178]:42587 "EHLO mail-oi1-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239299AbhGNMXJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:23:09 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f178.google.com with SMTP id m18so2004581oie.9; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 05:20:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Wj2YIDnuSkMORrnDduw22NHIm+du4AAqDR9YDqPpvIo=; b=QZgPSF5p33vMO9wUt/ZRHfKMlguHSVt+89zoGtQ7oXmtuhx8gYCUezwWIfTQvRfYcM NrFReBZ/Y/adO6Hh3nmF+mrI6mmEHnm27Ye20cH6NTB61CDo/Qdz6VjkDTETkPBmTWR+ LzJjzPHsJpQVDEHksMB/GNa14q9pYajgL2lIRbqElXln7MPwvT3dPPq5vaQzy+3wT1OP zSjurypMnnXKY6ciN8Gc8M1V5gk2g9YgQzwj1ydvCp/A/VymXByYGFQEnLYq/kzDOFpw 7m2/goqG+NdeG8KtypfRzOX1Nborp2ZlKcZjuz38Yl1nacYnbxvfWQ5RkzOuouD9yPqn 6Stw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Uy8RWezwmbsMGTFXq5AabhLUbhPzHUG0V0roDR80iD6LxNPQx vF0+h93uPggX0N4F0bmBx6JCWihOQ6QpsuSy0H4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx3hBx3XNvS6sx0m6VpifKSXeEkpj553UCUJ/z+9JGUL2e6pdiOKBdNX8/eMukU5V+ADUmGWDuBgZm+mSqM6BQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:10d0:: with SMTP id s16mr6768030ois.69.1626265216250; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 05:20:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210708180851.2311192-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20210708180851.2311192-3-sudeep.holla@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20210708180851.2311192-3-sudeep.holla@arm.com> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 14:20:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] ACPI: CPPC: Fix doxygen comments To: Sudeep Holla Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Cristian Marussi , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Jassi Brar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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). > + * @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. > */ > unsigned int cppc_get_transition_latency(int cpu_num) > { > --