[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vfq0kEN-VDd=aTycHH+oEkUHt260nH533UWnkoEnGRhjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:01:28 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:55 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 26/08/2024 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:18:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
> >> W=1 warnings:
> >>
> >> drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
> >> drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
> >
> > I prefer on per-driver basis, but since it's simple and I have nothing
> > in my queue,
>
> These are so trivial without impact on the code, even if W=1 reports
> them, that it would be quite a churn to handle multiple patches.
Even trivial changes may lead to Git conflicts if managed separately.
But as I said, there is nothing in my queue (at all) so there are no
chances for conflicts.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists