Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:39:38 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/13] cpufreq: cpufreq: Demote lots of function headers unworthy of kerneldoc status |
| |
On 15-07-20, 07:47, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 14-07-20, 15:50, Lee Jones wrote: > > > -/** > > > +/* > > > * cpufreq_remove_dev - remove a CPU device > > > > Because cpufreq_add_dev() is part of kernel doc, we better keep it. > > > > > * > > > * Removes the cpufreq interface for a CPU device. > > > @@ -2373,6 +2374,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_unregister_governor); > > > * cpufreq_get_policy - get the current cpufreq_policy > > > * @policy: struct cpufreq_policy into which the current cpufreq_policy > > > * is written > > > + * @cpu: CPU to find the policy for > > > * > > > * Reads the current cpufreq policy. > > > */ > > > @@ -2759,7 +2761,7 @@ int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data) > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_register_driver); > > > > > > -/** > > > +/* > > > * cpufreq_unregister_driver - unregister the current CPUFreq driver > > > > And this should be there for sure. > > Where is the *.rst file that references this kerneldoc entry? > > Also, what do you mean by "there"? We're not removing the function > header. It's still documented, it's just not kerneldoc.
Yeah, I meant from kernel-doc by "there".
Lets conclude the discussion on the other patch for what should be in kernel-doc.
> > > * > > > * Unregister the current CPUFreq driver. Only call this if you have > > > > -- > Lee Jones [李琼斯] > Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services > Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs > Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
-- viresh
| |