[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251201114602.094dce74@kemnade.info>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 11:46:02 +0100
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: cjz <guagua210311@...com>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Grygorii.Strashko@...com,
ssantosh@...nel.org, khilman@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
brgl@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: omap: add kernel-doc comment for omap_gpio_get()
Hi,
On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 17:54:21 +0800
cjz <guagua210311@...com> wrote:
> From: changjunzheng <guagua210311@...com>
>
> omap_gpio_get() is a core function for reading OMAP GPIO pin level, but it lacks complete kernel-doc comment (no function description, parameter explanation, or return value说明). This causes gcc W=1 warning and reduces code readability.
>
> Add standard kernel-doc comment to fix the warning and improve maintainability.
>
Can you elaborate on how this improves maintainability to document
obvious parameters of a local function? And why for this local function and
not for others? So why omap_gpio_runtime_suspend() which is also used
as function pointer does not need such comments?
Citing coding-style.rst:
"Do not add boilerplate
kernel-doc which simply reiterates what's obvious from the signature
of the function."
If that is just about compliance to some rule or make a compiler happy
in W=1, than do not disguise that and add fake arguments for your change.
BTW:
andi@...1:~/linux$ touch drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
andi@...1:~/linux$ make LLVM=1 ARCH=arm W=1
CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
CC drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.o
AR drivers/gpio/built-in.a
AR drivers/built-in.a
Silence....
with gcc again:
andi@...1:~/linux$ make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- zImage modules dtbs W=1
CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
CC drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.o
AR drivers/gpio/built-in.a
AR drivers/built-in.a
AR built-in.a
AR vmlinux.a
LD vmlinux.o
Also silence.
Regards,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists