On Fri, 06 Nov 2015, SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The pwm_put() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then >>> returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed. >> >> The compiler doesn't need it, but IMO it's useful documentation for humans. > > How do you think about to extend the explicit documentation for > the affected parameters in the Linux programming interfaces? The question is, while reading intel_panel.c, which one conveys the reader better the idea that panel->backlight.pwm may be NULL for some connectors: a) if (panel->backlight.pwm) pwm_put(panel->backlight.pwm); b) pwm_put(panel->backlight.pwm); No amount of documentation in pwm_put() kernel-doc is going to help with that. In most cases, panel->backlight.pwm is in fact NULL. IMO unconditionally calling pwm_put() on it gives the reader the wrong idea. Others may disagree. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
