Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from struct gpio_desc

[Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:40:26AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:15 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:18:01AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:07:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:03:44PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > > > > - it adds complications for no benefit
> > >
> > > It provides a placeholder for collective documentation and clarifies
> > > scope for the reader.
> >
> > Turns out kernel-doc can't deal with a struct variable declaration - it
> > needs the struct to be named.
> >
> > So this doesn't parse:
> >
> > static struct {
> >         struct rb_root tree;
> >         spinlock_t lock;
> > } supinfo;
> >
> > but this does:
> >
> > static struct supinfo {
> >         struct rb_root tree;
> >         spinlock_t lock;
> > } supinfo;
> >
> > at which point I prefer the separate struct and var declarations as per
> > the patch.
> >
> > Opinions?
> 
> Yeah, don't make it a kernel doc. It's a private structure, no need to
> expose documentation for it in docs. Just use a regular comment - say
> what it is and why it's here.

I agree with Bart, make it plain comment if needed.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko