[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZAnxLj7I7RlWlLuC@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 15:46:06 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Kaehn <kaehndan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] device property: Clarify description of returned
value in some functions
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:16:15PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 2:33 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Some of the functions do not provide Return: section on absence of which
> > kernel-doc complains. Besides that several functions return the fwnode
> > handle with incremented reference count. Add a respective note to make sure
> > that the caller decrements it when it's not needed anymore.
> >
> > While at it, unify the style of the Return: sections.
> >
> > Reported-by: Daniel Kaehn <kaehndan@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
>
> or please let me know if I need to pick it up.
I can take it, thanks.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists