Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Sep 2022 11:19:47 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] A simple doc fix | From | Andrey Grodzovsky <> |
| |
On 2022-09-14 15:26, Anup K Parikh wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:24:36AM -0400, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote: >> On 2022-09-14 06:36, Anup K Parikh wrote: >>> Fix two warnings during doc build which also results in corresponding >>> additions in generated docs >>> >>> Warnings Fixed: >>> 1. include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h:462: warning: Function parameter or member >>> 'dev' not described in 'drm_gpu_scheduler' >>> 2. drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c:1005: warning: Function >>> parameter or member 'dev' not described in 'drm_sched_init' >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Anup K Parikh <parikhanupk.foss@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 1 + >>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 1 + >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c >>> index 68317d3a7a27..875d00213849 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c >>> @@ -994,6 +994,7 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) >>> * used >>> * @score: optional score atomic shared with other schedulers >>> * @name: name used for debugging >>> + * @dev: A device pointer for use in error reporting in a multiple GPU scenario. >> >> Why multiple GPUs scenario ? It's also used in single GPU scenario. >> >> Andrey >> >> > Hello Mr. Andrey Grodzovsky, > > Thanks for the quick review and response. > > My documentation string (same for both files) is based on commit id > 8ab62eda177bc350f34fea4fcea23603b8184bfd. It seemed that both warnings > might've been introduced by the addition of that device pointer. > > Also, the commit message specifically mentions this addition for use with > DRM_DEV_ERROR() to make life easier under a multiple GPU scenario. So, I > used cscope to look for DRM_DEV_ERROR() and then for drm_dev_printk(). I > also checked previous versions of both files and noticed DRM_ERROR() in > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c changed to DRM_DEV_ERROR(). > > Perhaps, I wrongly correlated my cscope/history findings with the commit > message and used absolute wording. I guess that this might be (I usually > avoid absolute wording) useful not only in a single GPU scenario (to print > better standardized messages with dev when available) but also in non-error > printing such as with KERN_NOTICE, KERN_INFO, etc. I'm still not sure if > the added device pointer could be used for something else besides printing. > > Please let me know if my understanding is correct and whether I should > change the wording to: > > A device pointer - primarily useful for printing standardized messages with > DRM_DEV_ERROR().
It could be used for many other things but in this case in deed used only for the print. So yep - looks good.
Andrey
>>> * >>> * Return 0 on success, otherwise error code. >>> */ >>> diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h >>> index addb135eeea6..920b91fd1719 100644 >>> --- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h >>> +++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h >>> @@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ struct drm_sched_backend_ops { >>> * @_score: score used when the driver doesn't provide one >>> * @ready: marks if the underlying HW is ready to work >>> * @free_guilty: A hit to time out handler to free the guilty job. >>> + * @dev: A device pointer for use in error reporting in a multiple GPU scenario. >>> * >>> * One scheduler is implemented for each hardware ring. >>> */
| |