[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhAYeMNzHg0x97gN@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:27:52 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: Update the kernel documentation - add
Return sections
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 09:10:09PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 4/4/24 2:27 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > $ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none -Wall drivers/gpio/gpiolib* 2>&1 | grep -w warning | wc -l
> > 67
> >
> > Fix these by adding Return sections. While at it, make sure all of
> > Return sections use the same style.
..
> I would use %true, %false, %NULL, %0, and %1 in a few places.
Why? I specifically removed % from all of them, it's not so useful.
Do we have, btw, generated HTML with these % as an example to see
the difference. Maybe that helps to understand this better?
> s/error-code/error code/
> or
> s/error-code/errno/
>
> I would s/active-low/active low/
>
> or it can just be merged as is. It's a nice improvement.
That's what I prefer as any of your comments may touch other parts of the
documentation and need to be aligned across all comments, which is out scope of
this patch.
> Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Thank you!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists