[PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
W=1 warnings:

  drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
  drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c    | 1 -
 drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c | 1 -
 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c
index ee37ecb615cb..63f25c72eac2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c
@@ -84,7 +84,6 @@ struct pch_gpio_reg_data {
  * @gpio:			Data for GPIO infrastructure.
  * @pch_gpio_reg:		Memory mapped Register data is saved here
  *				when suspend.
- * @lock:			Used for register access protection
  * @irq_base:		Save base of IRQ number for interrupt
  * @ioh:		IOH ID
  * @spinlock:		Used for register access protection
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c
index 3a90a3a1caea..5ab394ec81e6 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c
@@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
 
 /**
  * struct syscon_gpio_data - Configuration for the device.
- * @compatible:		SYSCON driver compatible string.
  * @flags:		Set of GPIO_SYSCON_FEAT_ flags:
  *			GPIO_SYSCON_FEAT_IN:	GPIOs supports input,
  *			GPIO_SYSCON_FEAT_OUT:	GPIOs supports output,
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:18:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
> W=1 warnings:
> 
>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'

I prefer on per-driver basis, but since it's simple and I have nothing
in my queue,

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org> # for gpio-pch

in the assumption that Bart takes it directly.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 26/08/2024 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:18:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
>> W=1 warnings:
>>
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
> 
> I prefer on per-driver basis, but since it's simple and I have nothing
> in my queue,

These are so trivial without impact on the code, even if W=1 reports
them, that it would be quite a churn to handle multiple patches.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:55 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 26/08/2024 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:18:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> >> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
> >> W=1 warnings:
> >>
> >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
> >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
> >
> > I prefer on per-driver basis, but since it's simple and I have nothing
> > in my queue,
>
> These are so trivial without impact on the code, even if W=1 reports
> them, that it would be quite a churn to handle multiple patches.

Even trivial changes may lead to Git conflicts if managed separately.
But as I said, there is nothing in my queue (at all) so there are no
chances for conflicts.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:02 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:55 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 26/08/2024 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:18:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>
> > >> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
> > >> W=1 warnings:
> > >>
> > >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
> > >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
> > >
> > > I prefer on per-driver basis, but since it's simple and I have nothing
> > > in my queue,
> >
> > These are so trivial without impact on the code, even if W=1 reports
> > them, that it would be quite a churn to handle multiple patches.
>
> Even trivial changes may lead to Git conflicts if managed separately.
> But as I said, there is nothing in my queue (at all) so there are no
> chances for conflicts.
>

Is this an Ack for me to take these or do you want them to go through your tree?

Bart

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:02 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:55 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > On 26/08/2024 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:18:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >
> > > >> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
> > > >> W=1 warnings:
> > > >>
> > > >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
> > > >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
> > > >
> > > > I prefer on per-driver basis, but since it's simple and I have nothing
> > > > in my queue,
> > >
> > > These are so trivial without impact on the code, even if W=1 reports
> > > them, that it would be quite a churn to handle multiple patches.
> >
> > Even trivial changes may lead to Git conflicts if managed separately.
> > But as I said, there is nothing in my queue (at all) so there are no
> > chances for conflicts.
>
> Is this an Ack for me to take these or do you want them to go through your tree?

I was under the impression that I had sent the Rb tag (there was an
explanation about my preferences which do not prevent this from being
applied). Should I resent it? (Yes, I have checked and it's there,
`b4` should catch that.)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 12:38 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:02 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:55 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > On 26/08/2024 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 06:18:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
> > > > >> W=1 warnings:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
> > > > >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
> > > > >
> > > > > I prefer on per-driver basis, but since it's simple and I have nothing
> > > > > in my queue,
> > > >
> > > > These are so trivial without impact on the code, even if W=1 reports
> > > > them, that it would be quite a churn to handle multiple patches.
> > >
> > > Even trivial changes may lead to Git conflicts if managed separately.
> > > But as I said, there is nothing in my queue (at all) so there are no
> > > chances for conflicts.
> >
> > Is this an Ack for me to take these or do you want them to go through your tree?
>
> I was under the impression that I had sent the Rb tag (there was an
> explanation about my preferences which do not prevent this from being
> applied). Should I resent it? (Yes, I have checked and it's there,
> `b4` should catch that.)
>

I don't have this message for some reason. :(

Bart

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 6:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
> W=1 warnings:
>
>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> ---

I have a different patch in my queue that addresses the syscon warning
already. Can you resend just the pch part?

Bart

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 02/09/2024 14:03, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 6:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
>> W=1 warnings:
>>
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>> ---
> 
> I have a different patch in my queue that addresses the syscon warning
> already. Can you resend just the pch part?

ack

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 02/09/2024 14:03, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 6:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
>> W=1 warnings:
>>
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>> ---
> 
> I have a different patch in my queue that addresses the syscon warning
> already. Can you resend just the pch part?

Heh, you just picked up something which was sent week after mine. :/

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 02:10:37PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/09/2024 14:03, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 6:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski

...

> > I have a different patch in my queue that addresses the syscon warning
> > already. Can you resend just the pch part?
> 
> Heh, you just picked up something which was sent week after mine. :/

Whatever you decided, guys, feel free to use my Rb tag for gpio-pch.
Thank you!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] gpio: kerneldoc fixes for excess members

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 2:10 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 02/09/2024 14:03, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 6:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Drop kerneldoc descriptions of struct members which do not exist to fix
> >> W=1 warnings:
> >>
> >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c:101: warning: Excess struct member 'lock' description in 'pch_gpio'
> >>   drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c:46: warning: Excess struct member 'compatible' description in 'syscon_gpio_data'
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >
> > I have a different patch in my queue that addresses the syscon warning
> > already. Can you resend just the pch part?
>
> Heh, you just picked up something which was sent week after mine. :/
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

Sorry, I got back from vacation and was just going through the inbox
in no particular order. If you really insist, I can back the other one
out but I'd prefer to not rebase if I don't have to.

Bart