Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] watchdog: s3c2410: Cleanup PMU related code | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Date | Tue, 23 Nov 2021 14:33:26 -0800 |
| |
On 11/23/21 8:17 AM, Sam Protsenko wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 18:06, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote: >>> Now that PMU enablement code was extended for new Exynos SoCs, it >>> doesn't look very cohesive and consistent anymore. Do a bit of renaming, >>> grouping and style changes, to make it look good again. While at it, add >>> quirks documentation as well. >>> >>> No functional change, just a refactoring commit. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> >>> --- >>> Changes in v4: >>> - Added R-b tag by Guenter Roeck >>> >>> Changes in v3: >>> - Added quirks documentation >>> - Added R-b tag by Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> >>> Changes in v2: >>> - (none): it's a new patch >>> >>> drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >>> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c >>> index ec341c876225..f211be8bf976 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c >>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c >>> @@ -56,17 +56,51 @@ >>> #define EXYNOS5_RST_STAT_REG_OFFSET 0x0404 >>> #define EXYNOS5_WDT_DISABLE_REG_OFFSET 0x0408 >>> #define EXYNOS5_WDT_MASK_RESET_REG_OFFSET 0x040c >>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_PMU_CONFIG (1 << 0) >>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_RST_STAT (1 << 1) >>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG (1 << 2) >>> + >>> +/** >> >> 0-day complains: >> >> drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c:94: warning: expecting prototype for Quirk flags for different Samsung watchdog IP(). Prototype was for QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG() instead >> >> It doesn't seem to like the idea of documented bit masks. Not really sure >> what to do here. I am inclined to ignore it, but I don't want to get flooded >> by 0-day complaints until I retire either. Any idea ? >> > > Seems like 0-day thinks this kernel-doc comment is for the first > define only, and thus the comment has wrong format, or something like > that. I tried to follow the same style as GFP_KERNEL and others are > documented. > > Anyway, if you don't like 0-day complaints, can you please just > replace kernel-doc comment (/**) with regular comment (/*), by > removing one asterisk in the patch? Or I can re-send the patch > correspondingly -- then just let me know. >
Oh, never mind. Let's just hope that 0-day stops complaining at some point.
Guenter
| |