Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] watchdog: s3c2410: Cleanup PMU related code

[Guenter Roeck]

On 11/23/21 8:17 AM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 18:06, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 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