[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zs8r4_oYUNLd2xCZ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:53:39 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] regulator: irq_helpers: Add missing "Return"
kerneldoc section
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 03:50:55PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:55:48PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
...
> > > + * Return: 0
> >
> > "0."
>
> Ack.
>
> > > + *
> >
> > I don't think we need this blank line.
>
> This actually changes the output. Without the blank line, they are treated
> as the same paragraph. With the blank line, the next line is treated as
> a separate paragraph, and put in the "Description" section.
I see, then please make sure that description either annotated with
"Description:" or comes _before_ "Return:". that's why it confused me and I
though it's related to the "Return:" section.
> Strictly speaking, the only return value is the 0 integer. The other
> "return" values are output parameters that have been modified by the
> function. I believe those should not be in the "Return" section.
>
> > > + * Actual regulator error and notification are passed back through @rid.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists