Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/doc: fix kerneldoc syntax

[Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>]

On 14/03/19 11:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:35:36PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>> The probe() reference renders incorrectly and without a link, fix it.
>>
>> Also fix a typo reported by checkpatch in the context lines.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>> index 381581b01d48..585f5d079046 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>> @@ -264,13 +264,13 @@ void drm_minor_release(struct drm_minor *minor)
>>   * DOC: driver instance overview
>>   *
>>   * A device instance for a drm driver is represented by &struct drm_device. This
>> - * is initialized with drm_dev_init(), usually from bus-specific ->probe()
>> - * callbacks implemented by the driver. The driver then needs to initialize all
>> - * the various subsystems for the drm device like memory management, vblank
>> - * handling, modesetting support and intial output configuration plus obviously
>> - * initialize all the corresponding hardware bits. Finally when everything is up
>> - * and running and ready for userspace the device instance can be published
>> - * using drm_dev_register().
>> + * is initialized with drm_dev_init(), usually from bus-specific
>> + * &drm_driver.probe() callbacks implemented by the driver. The driver then
> 
> drm_driver.probe isn't a thing, and definitely not bus specific. What
> could work here is:

You're obviously right, thanks for taking the time to correct me.

> "... instead of a bus specific probe function like e.g.
> &pci_driver.probe or &platform_driver.probe."

Uhm, these don't want to render as hyperlinks. I guess it's because
these structs are not kernel-doc-annotated, nor are their .probe
methods. Probably not worth just doing that for the sake of this humble
patch.

Is it OK if I resend with just the basic syntax fix:
- ... bus-specific ->probe()
+ ... bus-specific probe()
?

Thanks,
-- 
Luca