On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 04:12:10PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 02:20:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 8:09 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> 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 <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > 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). > > > > Sure > > > > + * @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. > > > > Right, not required. I must have got confused with other place that expected > return summary. > I think kernel-doc complains if no Return: (not Returns:) doxygen clause is provided while describing a function which do return some values. (..even though the info is clearly duplicated as it is now in the one-line summary) Thanks, Cristian > -- > Regards, > Sudeep
