On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 04:18:46PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:06 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 04:01:43PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 2:52 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 02:12:51AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > $ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none -Wall drivers/gpio/gpiolib* 2>&1 | grep -w warning | wc -l > > > > > 67 > > > > > > > > > > Fix these by adding Return sections. While at it, make sure all of > > > > > Return sections use the same style. > > > > > > > > Since there shouldn't be hard dependency to the first one, can you consider > > > > applying this one, so it unblocks me? > > > > > > I'm not sure what the resolution is for % and HTML <font> tags in the end? > > > > Most of the constants are without %, so less churn now is to drop %. > > If you think otherwise, please, fix it and I will rebase my patches later. > > > > I'm not sure I get the logic of it. If the kernel-wide standard is to > use %, then we should work towards using it across the GPIO code even > if we do it a few lines at a time instead of going backwards just for > consistency in drivers/gpio/, no? We don't need to fix everything now > but if you're touching this code, then I'd go with %. > > Also: what about the s/error-code/error code/g issue? While we should > always say "active-low", I think error code looks better as two words. I also have no much time for these details. :( Let's drop this series then. Feel free to consider this as a problem report. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
