From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B892C433E0 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5216A20780 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2394173AbhAZSLH (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:11:07 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48776 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730007AbhAZQzp (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:55:45 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97066C061D73 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:55:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id h9so6978149wrr.9 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:55:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=Pz9VQ30QT10sFw3p7SZr4MIFLqcoCuT1kYq7h28FsoI=; b=PF0FfcRGHglmCRgXuhLv5V1KBb8LlfSc3KAIlPQ/rh0Pq029vtQUANKknIBlFKkoQK uW4frSXDkMIALok8IKL0uGGBplX2TRvQcsK0P8HWaVgYKCGiuUiZ5GzI0UOubmXUPeuP XoYoGZYrNic0DwuI/PpwwPIO1ATfShqgB0Q4bb736c1j1gDDawNQRZjUy2y9AQhUXg4W KIeNqRUaFa10mOyCe6/DlckWBwYeMTUVVCGXMuoQai+kuqu+xDifUcnAyoxP3tJwAp1T mnFcCHVXCw2qZN7IeSZeLwAHBb2rJQOUasJgY5zSKhhzyDpFL13Tcoq6o7FTPvCnoAuR F3hw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=Pz9VQ30QT10sFw3p7SZr4MIFLqcoCuT1kYq7h28FsoI=; b=Cp0VwLwRx22o3oKen7pjr6JKLydDDXf8rzT/aVn+fn+FIFPWTWXVkv643cQiy+pE5D zs9BJDdsBcVyLjP8sj1Iq9S0Nqebe81EmOvyPFq6VDcipJp291oMIESUdd7JNTEctvTA M/I2gGOWnDxm61L64NE1SAu6/kHjoiQdb4D+Lki6Mg28MYKXBEfm1sa6xSDdBh8W0vW7 KwCgbphf3a0P+wphl0EnbewdnKC2tzXB6GT4brzEB37Gcf1XmHiT5DmQfuoeCRR4lm3W ILOBTvTSwGiJQWkTZ7b8A8HA3cvrkSOf3ghM8HTFzg7GTdy+OQTk0wjW58R77AuNoVm0 +5JA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530FYdJWn1eTNmeH7FCUYe7bhmvyMbo83kZG6YYfQRARvqSLPps4 em36Fx3/jl+RDT0YqWQCyAlrMDLXdrx22Aka X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyvxvmA12WazvbTYMP2H4ciS5tTRJgRMbY8wWi/qHjALlszPnI8tbrCaHHbiMBaczjXXJr/mA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f18a:: with SMTP id h10mr6951758wro.299.1611680102365; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from dell ([91.110.221.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x128sm4428288wmb.29.2021.01.26.08.55.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:55:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:54:59 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Maxime Ripard Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Emilio =?iso-8859-1?Q?L=F3pez?= , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , Chen-Yu Tsai , Jernej Skrabec , Boris BREZILLON , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/21] clk: sunxi: clk-sun6i-ar100: Demote non-conformant kernel-doc header Message-ID: <20210126165459.GG4903@dell> References: <20210126124540.3320214-1-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20210126124540.3320214-13-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20210126155430.llxijnwf5i4z3end@gilmour> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20210126155430.llxijnwf5i4z3end@gilmour> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s): > > > > drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c:26: warning: Function parameter or member 'req' not described in 'sun6i_get_ar100_factors' > > > > Cc: "Emilio López" > > Cc: Michael Turquette > > Cc: Stephen Boyd > > Cc: Maxime Ripard > > Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai > > Cc: Jernej Skrabec > > Cc: Boris BREZILLON > > Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones > > --- > > drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > index e1b7d0929cf7f..54babc2b4b9ee 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ > > > > #include "clk-factors.h" > > > > -/** > > +/* > > * sun6i_get_ar100_factors - Calculates factors p, m for AR100 > > * > > * AR100 rate is calculated as follows > > This is the sixth patch doing the exact same thing over the files in > that folder you sent. Please fix all the occurences at once No. That would make the whole clean-up process 10x harder than it already is Before starting this endeavour there were 18,000+ warnings spread over 100's of files and 10's of subsystems that needed addressing (only a couple thousand left now thankfully). Some issues vastly different, some duplicated (much too much copy/pasting going which made things very frustrating at times). Anyway, in order to work though them all gracefully and in a sensible time-frame I had to come up with a workable plan. Each subsystem is compiled separately and a script attempts to take out duplicate warnings and takes me through the build-log one file at a time. Once all of the warnings are fixed in a source-file, it moves on to the next file. The method is clean and allows me to handle this gargantuan task in bite-sized chunks. Going though and pairing up similar changes is unsustainable for a task like this. It would add a lot of additional overhead and would slow down the rate of acceptance since source files tend to have different reviewers/maintainers - some working faster to review patches than others, leading to excessive lag times waiting for that one reviewer who takes weeks to review. Having each file addressed in a separate patch also helps revertability and bisectability. Not such a big problem with the documentation patches, but still. Admittedly doing it this way *can* look a bit odd in *some* patch-sets when they hit the MLs - particularly clock it seems, where there hasn't even been a vague attempt to document any of the parameters in the kernel-doc headers - however the alternative would mean nothing would get done! -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog