Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpiolib: Update the kernel documentation - add Return sections

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 04:18:46PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 04:01:43PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 2:52 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 02:12:51AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > $ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none -Wall drivers/gpio/gpiolib* 2>&1 | grep -w warning | wc -l
> > > > > 67
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix these by adding Return sections. While at it, make sure all of
> > > > > Return sections use the same style.
> > > >
> > > > Since there shouldn't be hard dependency to the first one, can you consider
> > > > applying this one, so it unblocks me?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what the resolution is for % and HTML <font> tags in the end?
> >
> > Most of the constants are without %, so less churn now is to drop %.
> > If you think otherwise, please, fix it and I will rebase my patches later.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure I get the logic of it. If the kernel-wide standard is to
> use %, then we should work towards using it across the GPIO code even
> if we do it a few lines at a time instead of going backwards just for
> consistency in drivers/gpio/, no? We don't need to fix everything now
> but if you're touching this code, then I'd go with %.
> 
> Also: what about the s/error-code/error code/g issue? While we should
> always say "active-low", I think error code looks better as two words.

I also have no much time for these details. :(
Let's drop this series then. Feel free to consider this as a problem report.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko