Re: [PATCH 02/13] cpufreq: cpufreq: Demote lots of function headers unworthy of kerneldoc status

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> On 14-07-20, 15:50, Lee Jones wrote:
> > -/**
> > +/*
> >   * cpufreq_remove_dev - remove a CPU device
> 
> Because cpufreq_add_dev() is part of kernel doc, we better keep it.
> 
> >   *
> >   * Removes the cpufreq interface for a CPU device.
> > @@ -2373,6 +2374,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_unregister_governor);
> >   * cpufreq_get_policy - get the current cpufreq_policy
> >   * @policy: struct cpufreq_policy into which the current cpufreq_policy
> >   *	is written
> > + * @cpu: CPU to find the policy for
> >   *
> >   * Reads the current cpufreq policy.
> >   */
> > @@ -2759,7 +2761,7 @@ int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_register_driver);
> >  
> > -/**
> > +/*
> >   * cpufreq_unregister_driver - unregister the current CPUFreq driver
> 
> And this should be there for sure.

Where is the *.rst file that references this kerneldoc entry?

Also, what do you mean by "there"?  We're not removing the function
header.  It's still documented, it's just not kerneldoc.

> >   *
> >   * Unregister the current CPUFreq driver. Only call this if you have
> 

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog