Re: [PATCH v4 10/27] video: fix some kernel-doc markups

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:24:04 +0100
Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> escreveu:

> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 05:38:04PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:36:06 +0100
> > Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >   
> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:18:06AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:  
> > > > Some identifiers have different names between their prototypes
> > > > and the kernel-doc markup.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>    
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > I'm assuming you're sending a pull request for this.  
> > 
> > Feel free to just merge it via your tree. Patches here are pretty
> > much independent ;-)  
> 
> Ok I put it into drm-misc-next. I kinda assumed since there's also a huge
> effort going on to shut up warnings, plus I think kerneldoc issues are
> reported by a bunch of build bots nowadays. So assumed you pile this all
> up.

Currently, this doesn't generate any warnings (which, IMHO, it is a
very bad thing). The final patch on this series actually such warning. 
My plan is to have the final patch merged for Kernel 5.11.

So, at least from PoV of shut up warnings[1], this patch be either
be merged for 5.11 or earlier.

Regards,
Mauro

-

[1] Basically, if you do:

	/**
	 * foo - some foo func
	 */
	int bar(...)

the documentation will be for "bar()" function, instead of
"foo()", as Kernel-doc currently simply ignores "foo".

On several places, this is due to a typo or a function
rename, but there are a few places where a "bar()" function
got added between the kernel-doc markup and "foo()" function,
thus producing wrong docs. Don't remember if are there any
such issues under drivers/video or drivers/gpu.