From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] misc: emif: add basic infrastructure for EMIF
 driver
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:40:20 +0530
Message-ID: <4F47701C.2090305@ti.com>
References: <1328357771-31644-1-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com> <1328357771-31644-5-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com> <4F3D2F2F.8050406@ti.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F3D2F2F.8050406@ti.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@ti.com>
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org

On Thursday 16 February 2012 10:00 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> Hi Aneesh,
>

[...]

>> +struct emif_data {
>> +	u8				duplicate;
>> +	u8				temperature_level;
>> +	u32				irq;
>> +	spinlock_t			lock; /* lock to prevent races */
>
> Nit: That comment is useless, since you already have the kerneldoc comment before.

Now I remember why I did that. Without that comment checkpatch gives
this "check".

CHECK: spinlock_t definition without comment
#124: FILE: drivers/misc/emif.c:54:
+	spinlock_t			lock;

br,
Aneesh