Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] drm: xlnx: Fix kerneldoc

[Sean Anderson]

On 3/22/24 01:50, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 17:33, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 3/20/24 02:05, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/19/24 22:42, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>>> On 20/03/2024 00:51, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>>>> Fix a few errors in the kerneldoc. Mostly this addresses missing/renamed
>>>>> members.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>> - New
>>>>>
>>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c  | 6 +++---
>>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_dpsub.h | 1 +
>>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_kms.h   | 4 ++--
>>>>>    3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c
>>>>> index 407bc07cec69..f79bf3fb8110 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c
>>>>> @@ -128,9 +128,9 @@ struct zynqmp_disp_layer {
>>>>>     * struct zynqmp_disp - Display controller
>>>>>     * @dev: Device structure
>>>>>     * @dpsub: Display subsystem
>>>>> - * @blend.base: Register I/O base address for the blender
>>>>> - * @avbuf.base: Register I/O base address for the audio/video buffer manager
>>>>> - * @audio.base: Registers I/O base address for the audio mixer
>>>>> + * @blend: Register I/O base address for the blender
>>>>> + * @avbuf: Register I/O base address for the audio/video buffer manager
>>>>> + * @audio: Registers I/O base address for the audio mixer
>>>>
>>>> Afaics, the kernel doc guide:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.kernel.org/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#nested-structs-unions
>>>>
>>>> says that the current version is correct. Or is the issue that while, say, 'base' is documented, 'blend' was not?
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would do it more like so:
>>>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c |    3 +++
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff -- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c
>>> @@ -128,8 +128,11 @@ struct zynqmp_disp_layer {
>>>    * struct zynqmp_disp - Display controller
>>>    * @dev: Device structure
>>>    * @dpsub: Display subsystem
>>> + * @blend: blender iomem info
>>>    * @blend.base: Register I/O base address for the blender
>>> + * @avbuf: audio/video buffer iomem info
>>>    * @avbuf.base: Register I/O base address for the audio/video buffer manager
>>> + * @audio: audio mixer iomem info
>>>    * @audio.base: Registers I/O base address for the audio mixer
>>>    * @layers: Layers (planes)
>>>    */
>>>
>>>
>>> but in my testing, Sean's way or my way result in no warning/errors.
>>>
>>
>> The specific errors are:
>>
>> ../drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c:151: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'blend' not described in 'zynqmp_disp'
>> ../drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c:151: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'avbuf' not described in 'zynqmp_disp'
>> ../drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/zynqmp_disp.c:151: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'audio' not described in 'zynqmp_disp'
>>
>> I don't see the need to document a single-member struct twice. Actually,
> 
> But if only the struct is documented, then we're documenting the wrong thing. A tool showing to the user what blend.base is would miss that documentation.

Are there any such tools? kerneldoc e.g. just prints the definition and
then a list of members with documentation. So from the user's
perspective the only thing which changes is the name.

--Sean

>> maybe it would be better to just lift the .base member to live in
>> zynqmp_disp. But I think that would be better in another series.
> 
> Yes, there's not much point with the structs.
> 
>  Tomi
>