[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a5evncxf.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:53:16 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: anish kumar <yesanishhere@...il.com>, ohad@...ery.com,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org
Cc: linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] remoteproc documentation changes
anish kumar <yesanishhere@...il.com> writes:
> This patch series transitions the documentation
> for remoteproc from the staging directory to the
> mainline kernel. It introduces both kernel and
> user-space APIs, enhancing the overall documentation
> quality.
>
> V4:
> Fixed compilation errors and moved documentation to
> driver-api directory.
>
> V3:
> Seperated out the patches further to make the intention
> clear for each patch.
>
> V2:
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202410161444.jOKMsoGS-lkp@intel.com/
So I think you could make better use of kerneldoc comments for a number
of your APIs and structures - a project for the future. I can't judge
the remoteproc aspects of this, but from a documentation mechanics point
of view, this looks about ready to me. In the absence of objections
I'll apply it in the near future.
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists