On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 07:35:44PM +0530, Basavaraj Natikar wrote: > On 5/31/2022 2:49 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:13:17PM +0530, Basavaraj Natikar wrote: ... > >> +/** > >> + * struct pingroups - provides information on pingroup > > Try `make W=1` against each of your patches from the series. Here is the kernel > > doc issue. > > shall address your comments in my next revision, I tried 'make W=1' could not hit the > kernel doc issue. Can you please elaborate a bit. Hmm... $ scripts/kernel-doc -none -v include/linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h ... include/linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h:39: warning: expecting prototype for struct pingroups. Prototype was for struct pingroup instead > >> + * @name: a name for pingroup > >> + * @pins: an array of pins in the pingroup > >> + * @npins: number of pins in the pingroup > >> + */ > >> +struct pingroup { > >> + const char *name; > >> + const unsigned int *pins; > >> + unsigned int npins; > > size_t probably would be better. > > > >> +}; ... > >> +/* Convenience macro to define a single named or anonymous pingroup */ > >> +#define PINCTRL_GRP(_name, _pins, _npins) \ > > I think PINCTRL_PINGROUP would be more precise. > > > >> +((struct pingroup) { \ > > No need to have space before { and compound literal means that it's not a GCC > > expression, i.e. drop outer parentheses (). > > > >> + .name = _name, \ > >> + .pins = _pins, \ > >> + .npins = _npins, \ > >> +}) > > > yes, or else I will hit the checkpatch error as below Does it compile? Does it work? If so, fix checkpatch. > ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses > > #36: FILE: include/linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h:42: > > +#define PINCTRL_GRP(_name, _pins, _npins) \ > +(struct pingroup){ \ > + .name = _name, \ > + .pins = _pins, \ > + .npins = _npins, \ > +} -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko