On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 03:26:36PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2014-11-03 10:33 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:10:12PM +0200, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira <ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c > >> index 8b80d68..f9ddedc 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c > >> @@ -46,6 +46,22 @@ static int usecs_to_scanlines(const struct drm_display_mode *mode, int usecs) > >> return DIV_ROUND_UP(usecs * mode->crtc_clock, 1000 * mode->crtc_htotal); > >> } > >> > >> +/** > >> + * intel_pipe_update_start() - start update of a set of display registers > >> + * @crtc: the crtc of which the registers are going to be updated > >> + * @start_vbl_count: vblank counter return pointer used for error checking > >> + * > >> + * Mark the start of an update to pipe registers that should be updated > >> + * atomically regarding vblank. If the next vblank will happens within > >> + * the next 100 us, this function waits until the vblank passes. > >> + * > >> + * After a successful call to this function, interrupts will be disabled > >> + * until a subsequent call to intel_pipe_update_end(). That is done to > >> + * avoid random delays. The value written to @start_vbl_count should be > >> + * supplied to intel_pipe_update_end() for error checking. > >> + * > >> + * Return: true if the call was successful > >> + */ > > > > It's nice that people now go overboard with kerneldoc, but I think we need > > to strike a good balance. And in general I think documenting static inline > > functions isn't worth it - they really should be self-explanatory as-is. > > But patch 3 exports these functions and uses them from another file. Ah, I've missed that, comment retracted ... > > > > > Documentation is imo only really useful for the bigger stuff, which > > usually means it's used in a few places all over. So non-static functions. > > The comments he introduced are useful and helped me review patch 3 > without having to look at the function implementation and waste 20 > minutes wondering what it was supposed to do. > > To me, this patch is an improvement to the codebase, so with or > without the extra '*' chars: > Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> ... and patch merged. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
