Re: [PATCH] firmware: improve description of firmware_request_nowarn

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:02:21PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> The doubled 'however' is confusing. Simplify the comment a little and
> reformat the paragraph.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> Acked-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c | 13 +++++++------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c b/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c
> index ca871b13524e..8c7d9b432cb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c
> @@ -838,13 +838,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(request_firmware);
>   * @name: name of firmware file
>   * @device: device for which firmware is being loaded
>   *
> - * This function is similar in behaviour to request_firmware(), except
> - * it doesn't produce warning messages when the file is not found.
> - * The sysfs fallback mechanism is enabled if direct filesystem lookup fails,
> - * however, however failures to find the firmware file with it are still
> - * suppressed. It is therefore up to the driver to check for the return value
> - * of this call and to decide when to inform the users of errors.
> + * This function is similar in behaviour to request_firmware(), except it
> + * doesn't produce warning messages when the file is not found. The sysfs
> + * fallback mechanism is enabled if direct filesystem lookup fails. However,
> + * failures to find the firmware file with it are still suppressed. It is
> + * therefore up to the driver to check for the return value of this call and to
> + * decide when to inform the users of errors.
>   **/
> +

Why the extra blank line, doesn't that break kerneldoc handling?

Can you drop that and resend with Luis's ack?

thanks,

greg k-h