On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 06:40:51 +0100 Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > > Please rephrase, I do not understand. > > > > > > Should I resend this patch with corrected "Return:" description, or > > > continue with inlined comments withing the struct and drop this patch? > > > > I'm not talking about Returns, I'm talking about the core idea of > > the patch. The duplicate definitions seem odd, can we teach kernel-doc > > to understand function args instead? Most obvious format which comes > > to mind: > > > > * ... > > * @config_init - Initialize the PHY, including after a reset. > > * @config_init.phydev: The PHY device to initialize. > > * > > * Returns: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure. > > * ... > > It will be too many side quests to me for now. I can streamline comments > if there is agreement how it should look like. But fixing kdoc - I would leave > it to the experts. > > What do you prefer, proceed with stats patch without fixing comments or > fix comment without fixing kdoc? The former. And you're using the word "fix" very loosely here, IMHO.
