Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 12:38 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:02 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:55 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 26/08/2024 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:18:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
> > > > >> W=1 warnings:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
> > > > >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
> > > > >
> > > > > I prefer on per-driver basis, but since it's simple and I have nothing
> > > > > in my queue,
> > > >
> > > > These are so trivial without impact on the code, even if W=1 reports
> > > > them, that it would be quite a churn to handle multiple patches.
> > >
> > > Even trivial changes may lead to Git conflicts if managed separately.
> > > But as I said, there is nothing in my queue (at all) so there are no
> > > chances for conflicts.
> >
> > Is this an Ack for me to take these or do you want them to go through your tree?
>
> I was under the impression that I had sent the Rb tag (there was an
> explanation about my preferences which do not prevent this from being
> applied). Should I resent it? (Yes, I have checked and it's there,
> `b4` should catch that.)
>

I don't have this message for some reason. :(

Bart