On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 18:05:06 -0400 Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 09:11:53AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > There are a couple of issues at i915 display kernel-doc markups: > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c:2238: warning: Function parameter or member 'intel_connector' not described in 'intel_connector_debugfs_add' > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c:2238: warning: Excess function parameter 'connector' description in 'intel_connector_debugfs_add' > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c:700: warning: expecting prototype for intel_display_power_put_async(). Prototype was for __intel_display_power_put_async() instead > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c:807: warning: Function parameter or member 'work' not described in 'intel_tc_port_disconnect_phy_work' > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c:807: warning: Excess function parameter 'dig_port' description in 'intel_tc_port_disconnect_phy_work' > > > > Those are due to wrong parameter of function name. Address them. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > To avoid mailbombing on a large number of people, only mailing lists were C/C on the cover. > > See [PATCH v2 00/39] at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1657699522.git.mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c | 2 +- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c | 2 +- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c > > index 6c3954479047..1e35eb01742b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c > > @@ -2229,7 +2229,7 @@ DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(i915_current_bpc); > > > > /** > > * intel_connector_debugfs_add - add i915 specific connector debugfs files > > - * @connector: pointer to a registered drm_connector > > + * @intel_connector: pointer to a registered drm_connector > > * > > * Cleanup will be done by drm_connector_unregister() through a call to > > * drm_debugfs_connector_remove(). > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c > > index 589af257edeb..fd6b71160a06 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c > > @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ intel_display_power_put_async_work(struct work_struct *work) > > } > > > > /** > > - * intel_display_power_put_async - release a power domain reference asynchronously > > + * __intel_display_power_put_async - release a power domain reference asynchronously > > oh, we are really using __ prefix for non-static functions?! o.O Yeah... Btw, this is actually a common practice to have __ prefix on non-static and even on exported functions. Usually, the __ variant assumes that a spinlock/mutex were already taken previously. However, that's not the case here, as it starts holding a mutex. In this specific case, the __ variant is called by an inline function on a different way, depending if CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_RUNTIME_PM is true. On such case, it passes the runtime PM wakeref, otherwise it passes a -1. Funny enough, intel_display_power_put() ifdef is inside the C file, using a different implementation: #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_RUNTIME_PM) ... void intel_display_power_put(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum intel_display_power_domain domain, intel_wakeref_t wakeref) ... #else ... void intel_display_power_put_unchecked(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, enum intel_display_power_domain domain) ... #endif For consistency, I would use the same solution for both, probably at the C file, and avoiding use a __ prefix for the async put version. > anyway, with that ditto "()" consistency, > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks! Btw, I'm removing "()" from patches 1-3 (both at descriptions and internally), keeping your R-B on them too. Regards, Mauro
