linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: mediatek: Fix i2c_spec

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6e029d96-6171-0006-a5bb-01d0d5a7391b@suse.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 15:35:00 +0200
From:   Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@...e.com>
To:     Qii Wang <qii.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Cc:     wsa@...-dreams.de, yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: mediatek: Fix i2c_spec_values description



On 06/08/2020 13:06, Qii Wang wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 11:48 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>> The struct i2c_spec_values have it's members documented but is missing the
>> starting '@', which leads to warings like:
>>
>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mt65xx.c:267: warning: Function parameter or member
>> 'min_low_ns' not described in 'i2c_spec_values'
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
>> ---
>>    drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mt65xx.c | 8 ++++----
>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mt65xx.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mt65xx.c
>> index e889f74703e4..f51b35fc400f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mt65xx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mt65xx.c
>> @@ -253,10 +253,10 @@ struct mtk_i2c {
>>
>>    /**
>>     * struct i2c_spec_values:
>> - * min_low_ns: min LOW period of the SCL clock
> 
> Can you help me add a description of min_high_ns. As
> @min_high_ns: min HIGH period of the SCL clock

Right, I forgot about this one.

Actually I don't see any code which uses the value, so I think it should be 
deleted from the struct.

Do you have any thoughts on this.

Regards,
Matthias