On 11/27/21 2:52 PM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 01:30, Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 00:33, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/23/21 8:17 AM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 18:06, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:
Now that PMU enablement code was extended for new Exynos SoCs, it
doesn't look very cohesive and consistent anymore. Do a bit of renaming,
grouping and style changes, to make it look good again. While at it, add
quirks documentation as well.
No functional change, just a refactoring commit.
Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v4:
- Added R-b tag by Guenter Roeck
Changes in v3:
- Added quirks documentation
- Added R-b tag by Krzysztof Kozlowski
Changes in v2:
- (none): it's a new patch
drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
index ec341c876225..f211be8bf976 100644
--- a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
+++ b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
@@ -56,17 +56,51 @@
#define EXYNOS5_RST_STAT_REG_OFFSET 0x0404
#define EXYNOS5_WDT_DISABLE_REG_OFFSET 0x0408
#define EXYNOS5_WDT_MASK_RESET_REG_OFFSET 0x040c
-#define QUIRK_HAS_PMU_CONFIG (1 << 0)
-#define QUIRK_HAS_RST_STAT (1 << 1)
-#define QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG (1 << 2)
+
+/**
0-day complains:
drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c:94: warning: expecting prototype for Quirk flags for different Samsung watchdog IP(). Prototype was for QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG() instead
It doesn't seem to like the idea of documented bit masks. Not really sure
what to do here. I am inclined to ignore it, but I don't want to get flooded
by 0-day complaints until I retire either. Any idea ?
Seems like 0-day thinks this kernel-doc comment is for the first
define only, and thus the comment has wrong format, or something like
that. I tried to follow the same style as GFP_KERNEL and others are
documented.
Anyway, if you don't like 0-day complaints, can you please just
replace kernel-doc comment (/**) with regular comment (/*), by
removing one asterisk in the patch? Or I can re-send the patch
correspondingly -- then just let me know.
Oh, never mind. Let's just hope that 0-day stops complaining at some point.
Just sent v5 for this patch, fixing that 0-day warning properly. Found
info about it here: [1]. So to check that warning, apparently it's
enough to run "make W=n" build, or dry-run for kernel-doc script like
this:
$ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
Anyway, please take v4 series + v5 for this patch. Hope that'll be all
for 0-day swearing :)
[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst
Hi Guenter,
Can you please take this patch:
[PATCH v4 12/12] watchdog: s3c2410: Add Exynos850 support
and replace "Cleanup PMU related code" patch you already applied with this one:
[PATCH v5] watchdog: s3c2410: Cleanup PMU related code
I can see you already took most of WDT patches I sent, but those two
seem to be missing.
Upstream work is always "time permitting". Done now.
Also, I can't see my patches (which are already present in your
"watchdog-next" branch) in linux-next/master. Is that expected, or I'm
missing something?
My watchdog-next branch is for 0-day coverage only. It is not made
available in linux-next. linux-next pulls watchdog related changes
from the official watchdog repository at
git://www.linux-watchdog.org/linux-watchdog-next.git#master
Guenter
