It looks like the incorrect name of a function parameter was used
in the kernel-doc notation, so just change it to the function's
parameter name to quell the kernel-doc warning.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c:640: warning: Function parameter or member 'vaddr' not described in 'drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_mono_reversed'
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c:640: warning: Excess function parameter 'src' description in 'drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_mono_reversed'
Fixes: bcf8b616deb8 ("drm/format-helper: Add drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_mono_reversed()")
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Cc: David Airlie <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]>
CC: Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>
CC: Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- linux-next-20220401.orig/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c
+++ linux-next-20220401/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c
@@ -624,7 +624,7 @@ static void drm_fb_gray8_to_mono_reverse
* drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_mono_reversed - Convert XRGB8888 to reversed monochrome
* @dst: reversed monochrome destination buffer
* @dst_pitch: Number of bytes between two consecutive scanlines within dst
- * @src: XRGB8888 source buffer
+ * @vaddr: XRGB8888 source buffer
* @fb: DRM framebuffer
* @clip: Clip rectangle area to copy
*
Hello Randy,
On 4/4/22 01:29, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> It looks like the incorrect name of a function parameter was used
> in the kernel-doc notation, so just change it to the function's
> parameter name to quell the kernel-doc warning.
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c:640: warning: Function parameter or member 'vaddr' not described in 'drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_mono_reversed'
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c:640: warning: Excess function parameter 'src' description in 'drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_mono_reversed'
>
> Fixes: bcf8b616deb8 ("drm/format-helper: Add drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_mono_reversed()")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> Cc: David Airlie <[email protected]>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]>
> CC: Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>
> CC: Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
Thanks for the patch.
Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
--
Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat
Reviewed-by: Simon Ser <[email protected]>
On 4/5/22 08:12, Simon Ser wrote:
> On Monday, April 4th, 2022 at 23:35, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/22 09:04, Simon Ser wrote:
>>
>>> Both doc patches pushed, thanks. I had to manually edit them because they
>>> wouldn't apply cleanly. Next time, please use git-send-email (see
>>> https://git-send-email.io/ for setup instructions).
>>
>> That's odd. I did use 'git send-email' and I don't usually have any
>> problems (AFAIK). I'll check those setup instructions.
>
> Hm, maybe the issue isn't git-send-email, but the way the patch was
> generated? I had to manually edit these lines for the first patch to work:
>
> --- linux-next-20211217.orig/include/drm/drm_file.h
> +++ linux-next-20211217/include/drm/drm_file.h
>
> I changed these to:
>
> --- a/include/drm/drm_file.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_file.h
>
> This wasn't enough for the second patch, I had to re-do the changes by hand
> from scratch.
>
Yes, I believe the suggestion should be to use git-format-patch instead.
To make sure that was is posted can be consumed by the git-am command.
--
Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat
On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 16:39, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/4/22 23:26, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>
> > On 4/5/22 08:12, Simon Ser wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, April 4th, 2022 at 23:35, Randy Dunlap [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 4/4/22 09:04, Simon Ser wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Both doc patches pushed, thanks. I had to manually edit them because they
> > > > > wouldn't apply cleanly. Next time, please use git-send-email (see
> > > > > https://git-send-email.io/ for setup instructions).
> > > >
> > > > That's odd. I did use 'git send-email' and I don't usually have any
> > > > problems (AFAIK). I'll check those setup instructions.
> > >
> > > Hm, maybe the issue isn't git-send-email, but the way the patch was
> > > generated? I had to manually edit these lines for the first patch to work:
> > >
> > > --- linux-next-20211217.orig/include/drm/drm_file.h
> > > +++ linux-next-20211217/include/drm/drm_file.h
> > >
> > > I changed these to:
> > >
> > > --- a/include/drm/drm_file.h
> > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_file.h
> > >
> > > This wasn't enough for the second patch, I had to re-do the changes by hand
> > > from scratch.
> >
> > Yes, I believe the suggestion should be to use git-format-patch instead.
> >
> > To make sure that was is posted can be consumed by the git-am command.
>
>
> Considering that I am not using git, I think it will be difficult
> to use git-format-patch.
Ah, okay. Would you consider using Git for you next patches?
(FYI, I'll pass next time I hit a patch which doesn't apply cleanly.
Nothing personal, it's just that I don't have time to deal with broken
patches.)
Hi Simon,
On 4/5/22 08:05, Simon Ser wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 16:39, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/22 23:26, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/5/22 08:12, Simon Ser wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, April 4th, 2022 at 23:35, Randy Dunlap [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/4/22 09:04, Simon Ser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Both doc patches pushed, thanks. I had to manually edit them because they
>>>>>> wouldn't apply cleanly. Next time, please use git-send-email (see
>>>>>> https://git-send-email.io/ for setup instructions).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's odd. I did use 'git send-email' and I don't usually have any
>>>>> problems (AFAIK). I'll check those setup instructions.
>>>>
>>>> Hm, maybe the issue isn't git-send-email, but the way the patch was
>>>> generated? I had to manually edit these lines for the first patch to work:
>>>>
>>>> --- linux-next-20211217.orig/include/drm/drm_file.h
>>>> +++ linux-next-20211217/include/drm/drm_file.h
>>>>
>>>> I changed these to:
>>>>
>>>> --- a/include/drm/drm_file.h
>>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_file.h
quilt (which I am using) can generate a/ b/ patches instead of linux.orig/ and
linux/ patches.
>>>> This wasn't enough for the second patch, I had to re-do the changes by hand
>>>> from scratch.
I would like more information about this one if it's not too much trouble
for you.
>>> Yes, I believe the suggestion should be to use git-format-patch instead.
>>>
>>> To make sure that was is posted can be consumed by the git-am command.
>>
>>
>> Considering that I am not using git, I think it will be difficult
>> to use git-format-patch.
>
> Ah, okay. Would you consider using Git for you next patches?
Don't know. It's quite a big hurdle to jump over IMO.
> (FYI, I'll pass next time I hit a patch which doesn't apply cleanly.
> Nothing personal, it's just that I don't have time to deal with broken
> patches.)
Yeah, I get it.
thanks.
--
~Randy
On 4/4/22 23:26, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 4/5/22 08:12, Simon Ser wrote:
>> On Monday, April 4th, 2022 at 23:35, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/4/22 09:04, Simon Ser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Both doc patches pushed, thanks. I had to manually edit them because they
>>>> wouldn't apply cleanly. Next time, please use git-send-email (see
>>>> https://git-send-email.io/ for setup instructions).
>>>
>>> That's odd. I did use 'git send-email' and I don't usually have any
>>> problems (AFAIK). I'll check those setup instructions.
>>
>> Hm, maybe the issue isn't git-send-email, but the way the patch was
>> generated? I had to manually edit these lines for the first patch to work:
>>
>> --- linux-next-20211217.orig/include/drm/drm_file.h
>> +++ linux-next-20211217/include/drm/drm_file.h
>>
>> I changed these to:
>>
>> --- a/include/drm/drm_file.h
>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_file.h
>>
>> This wasn't enough for the second patch, I had to re-do the changes by hand
>> from scratch.
>>
>
> Yes, I believe the suggestion should be to use git-format-patch instead.
>
> To make sure that was is posted can be consumed by the git-am command.
Considering that I am not using git, I think it will be difficult
to use git-format-patch.
(git-send-email is independent of git.)
Still, this is the first time in many years that I have heard
of this problem.
Thanks for the info and insights.
--
~Randy
On 4/5/22 11:47, Simon Ser wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 19:58, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/22 08:05, Simon Ser wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 16:39, Randy Dunlap [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/4/22 23:26, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/5/22 08:12, Simon Ser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, April 4th, 2022 at 23:35, Randy Dunlap [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/4/22 09:04, Simon Ser wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both doc patches pushed, thanks. I had to manually edit them because they
>>>>>>>> wouldn't apply cleanly. Next time, please use git-send-email (see
>>>>>>>> https://git-send-email.io/ for setup instructions).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's odd. I did use 'git send-email' and I don't usually have any
>>>>>>> problems (AFAIK). I'll check those setup instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hm, maybe the issue isn't git-send-email, but the way the patch was
>>>>>> generated? I had to manually edit these lines for the first patch to work:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- linux-next-20211217.orig/include/drm/drm_file.h
>>>>>> +++ linux-next-20211217/include/drm/drm_file.h
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I changed these to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- a/include/drm/drm_file.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_file.h
>>
>>
>> quilt (which I am using) can generate a/ b/ patches instead of linux.orig/ and
>> linux/ patches.
>>
>>>>>> This wasn't enough for the second patch, I had to re-do the changes by hand
>>>>>> from scratch.
>>
>>
>> I would like more information about this one if it's not too much trouble
>> for you.
>
> IIRC it was the usual git-am error "fatal: sha1 information is lacking
> or useless". Maybe you wrote the patch for an old tree and drm-misc-next
> contained changes near the lines you changed? Maybe providing base-commit
> information in the patch would've helped? I'm not sure.
OK, thanks Simon.
--
~Randy
On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 19:58, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/5/22 08:05, Simon Ser wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 16:39, Randy Dunlap [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > On 4/4/22 23:26, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 4/5/22 08:12, Simon Ser wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Monday, April 4th, 2022 at 23:35, Randy Dunlap [email protected] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/4/22 09:04, Simon Ser wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both doc patches pushed, thanks. I had to manually edit them because they
> > > > > > > wouldn't apply cleanly. Next time, please use git-send-email (see
> > > > > > > https://git-send-email.io/ for setup instructions).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's odd. I did use 'git send-email' and I don't usually have any
> > > > > > problems (AFAIK). I'll check those setup instructions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hm, maybe the issue isn't git-send-email, but the way the patch was
> > > > > generated? I had to manually edit these lines for the first patch to work:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- linux-next-20211217.orig/include/drm/drm_file.h
> > > > > +++ linux-next-20211217/include/drm/drm_file.h
> > > > >
> > > > > I changed these to:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- a/include/drm/drm_file.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_file.h
>
>
> quilt (which I am using) can generate a/ b/ patches instead of linux.orig/ and
> linux/ patches.
>
> > > > > This wasn't enough for the second patch, I had to re-do the changes by hand
> > > > > from scratch.
>
>
> I would like more information about this one if it's not too much trouble
> for you.
IIRC it was the usual git-am error "fatal: sha1 information is lacking
or useless". Maybe you wrote the patch for an old tree and drm-misc-next
contained changes near the lines you changed? Maybe providing base-commit
information in the patch would've helped? I'm not sure.