On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 00:33, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/23/21 8:17 AM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 18:06, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> >>> Now that PMU enablement code was extended for new Exynos SoCs, it
> >>> doesn't look very cohesive and consistent anymore. Do a bit of renaming,
> >>> grouping and style changes, to make it look good again. While at it, add
> >>> quirks documentation as well.
> >>>
> >>> No functional change, just a refactoring commit.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> Changes in v4:
> >>> - Added R-b tag by Guenter Roeck
> >>>
> >>> Changes in v3:
> >>> - Added quirks documentation
> >>> - Added R-b tag by Krzysztof Kozlowski
> >>>
> >>> Changes in v2:
> >>> - (none): it's a new patch
> >>>
> >>> drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >>> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
> >>> index ec341c876225..f211be8bf976 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
> >>> @@ -56,17 +56,51 @@
> >>> #define EXYNOS5_RST_STAT_REG_OFFSET 0x0404
> >>> #define EXYNOS5_WDT_DISABLE_REG_OFFSET 0x0408
> >>> #define EXYNOS5_WDT_MASK_RESET_REG_OFFSET 0x040c
> >>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_PMU_CONFIG (1 << 0)
> >>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_RST_STAT (1 << 1)
> >>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG (1 << 2)
> >>> +
> >>> +/**
> >>
> >> 0-day complains:
> >>
> >> drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c:94: warning: expecting prototype for Quirk flags for different Samsung watchdog IP(). Prototype was for QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG() instead
> >>
> >> It doesn't seem to like the idea of documented bit masks. Not really sure
> >> what to do here. I am inclined to ignore it, but I don't want to get flooded
> >> by 0-day complaints until I retire either. Any idea ?
> >>
> >
> > Seems like 0-day thinks this kernel-doc comment is for the first
> > define only, and thus the comment has wrong format, or something like
> > that. I tried to follow the same style as GFP_KERNEL and others are
> > documented.
> >
> > Anyway, if you don't like 0-day complaints, can you please just
> > replace kernel-doc comment (/**) with regular comment (/*), by
> > removing one asterisk in the patch? Or I can re-send the patch
> > correspondingly -- then just let me know.
> >
>
> Oh, never mind. Let's just hope that 0-day stops complaining at some point.
>
Just sent v5 for this patch, fixing that 0-day warning properly. Found
info about it here: [1]. So to check that warning, apparently it's
enough to run "make W=n" build, or dry-run for kernel-doc script like
this:
$ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
Anyway, please take v4 series + v5 for this patch. Hope that'll be all
for 0-day swearing :)
[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst
> Guenter
