From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D84233D51A; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 08:06:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780387612; cv=none; b=fB412oHNu3oBSLLtn/QGIcSqgQ5Lx+PclOEFODFQAd8/LkknJMWkiR8540OdIxIJPtSHXa+BZYuMff+G5+VxGD5FqoCSQKo++0Kuy+il0SJ8GGXRzsXoOz6rQ0wE9RyMXH7CHaN9qNVaci6XODsmFc1BZAjOBfDFMs31yN10xTc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780387612; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SA3/YKlab2TVUKqjNO+G2x5l+v2KK5/dVdR8g1uIGZM=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=KjoCOhf/JtKTLwNk6E6pwKccQZzzsFcwhEEm1A8i/KfMrY6LI4JjycrpOaJa9xdU7vx84wCEckeZ9wQH7ZXrB95IKs37GVMKDyHg2RMOQJvENH+Zfu9G9fLw+91tQ/9vpI/HlnPH5dgDWsF89Rv+YSi6CPw8vC5vLLAjRkPVsyc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=flu+JdQb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="flu+JdQb" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8EC861F00893; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 08:06:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780387610; bh=B+QTt9O0bWTfpiutZRk92oLuXwC7p/addxsH7yIaxBA=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=flu+JdQbRAlqXvaahphORXLBZ9mJYP/UqV7o09tL50QE6EgL49J7ZLc1goWcuI8hR 82gtosU99AH+fdPFqGbk7oxuKm+Qn2+vBocvcoPfrHb4M5iuXqwCpaeQ3uD5EQuqtg UFR+zlF6LDQpOwyeKjQeXcUCLxObKtnW2HJSjh8hK0xAZJKHIRnjsXXyrM8dabSN/3 PYLXBwIHOFXXyRlVGTAfzyqmJm240ph/NxHEFgf4u/N+6Dwtn7qxK5+G63oLD0uDaG zB6CldykVm6Kl9a9VeTyDEy884gYD/rXafNUyk0TxQ1WlLgxW4zmH/XuTGErGzGGlK SAdZchAOAvVpA== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/6] pinctrl: s32cc: add/fix some comments Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Khristine Andreea Barbulescu" Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, Frank.Li@kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260602080132.3256239-2-khristineandreea.barbulescu@oss.nxp.com> References: <20260602080132.3256239-2-khristineandreea.barbulescu@oss.nxp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 08:06:50 +0000 Message-Id: <20260602080650.8EC861F00893@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] Typo in the newly added documentation for `struct s32_pinctrl_conte= xt`. - [Low] Invalid kernel-doc comment block syntax. - [Low] Inconsistent error message capitalization. -- commit a7822dc8d9c7d5010c39b80aee179b5ec0735e03 Author: Khristine Andreea Barbulescu pinctrl: s32cc: add/fix some comments Add/fix some comments and print statements. > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/nxp/pinctrl-s32cc.c b/drivers/pinctrl/nxp/pi= nctrl-s32cc.c > index fe7cd641fddd0..4f88c24e62a21 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/nxp/pinctrl-s32cc.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/nxp/pinctrl-s32cc.c > @@ -60,6 +60,12 @@ static u32 get_pin_func(u32 pinmux) > return pinmux & GENMASK(3, 0); > } > =20 > +/* [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but should this start with /** instead of /*? The newly added comment for struct s32_pinctrl_mem_region follows the kernel-doc format, but because it begins with /* rather than /**, the kernel-doc scripts will likely ignore it. > + * struct s32_pinctrl_mem_region - memory region for a set of SIUL2 regi= sters > + * @map: regmap used for this range > + * @pin_range: the pins controlled by these registers > + * @name: name of the current range > + */ > struct s32_pinctrl_mem_region { [ ... ] > @@ -67,7 +73,7 @@ struct s32_pinctrl_mem_region { > }; > =20 > /* > - * Holds pin configuration for GPIO's. > + * struct gpio_pin_config - holds pin configuration for GPIO's [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but this comment also follows the kernel-doc format without starting with /**. Should it be updated to /** so it can be picked = up by the documentation tools? > * @pin_id: Pin ID for this GPIO > * @config: Pin settings > * @list: Linked list entry for each gpio pin [ ... ] > @@ -79,20 +85,22 @@ struct gpio_pin_config { > }; > =20 > /* > - * Pad config save/restore for power suspend/resume. > + * struct s32_pinctrl_context - pad config save/restore for suspend/resu= me > + * @pads: saved values for the pards [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but there's a typo here (pards instead of pads). Additionally, this comment block also lacks the /** prefix required for kernel-doc. > */ > struct s32_pinctrl_context { > unsigned int *pads; > }; > =20 > /* > + * struct s32_pinctrl - private driver data > * @dev: a pointer back to containing device [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but this comment block is also missing the /** prefix. > * @pctl: a pointer to the pinctrl device structure > * @regions: reserved memory regions with start/end pin [ ... ] > @@ -974,7 +982,7 @@ int s32_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev, > ipctl); > if (IS_ERR(ipctl->pctl)) > return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(ipctl->pctl), > - "could not register s32 pinctrl driver\n"); > + "Could not register s32 pinctrl driver\n"); [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but does changing "could" to "Could" break consistency with the rest of this file? Other error messages in s32_pinctrl_probe() start with lowercase letters (e.g., "wrong pinctrl info", "fail to probe dt properties"). Should this be kept lowercase to match the rest of the file and standard kernel practice? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260602080132.3256= 239-1-khristineandreea.barbulescu@oss.nxp.com?part=3D1