Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 18 Jul 2020 15:54:42 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc:     knaack.h@gmx.de, lars@metafoo.de, pmeerw@pmeerw.net,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>,
        Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/30] iio: gyro: adis16080: Fix formatting issue and
 compiler attribute ordering
Message-ID: <20200718155442.14c420db@archlinux>
In-Reply-To: <20200716135928.1456727-13-lee.jones@linaro.org>
References: <20200716135928.1456727-1-lee.jones@linaro.org>
        <20200716135928.1456727-13-lee.jones@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:59:10 +0100
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:

> Kerneldoc expects attributes/parameters to be in '@*.: ' format and
> gets confused if the variable does not follow the type/attribute
> definitions.
> 
> Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
> 
>  drivers/iio/gyro/adis16080.c:49: warning: Function parameter or member 'lock' not described in 'adis16080_state'
>  drivers/iio/gyro/adis16080.c:49: warning: Function parameter or member '____cacheline_aligned' not described in 'adis16080_state'
> 
> Cc: Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>
> Cc: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Hmm. You are going to have an awful lot of those ____cacheline_aligned ones.

Might be worth thinking about whether we fix kernel-doc to cope with those.

A quick grep suggests the vast majority of users of this have it after
the element name.

@Jon Corbet :  What do you think?  Looks like there is special
handling already for ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp. Should we extend
that to this case?

Jonathan


> ---
>  drivers/iio/gyro/adis16080.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/gyro/adis16080.c b/drivers/iio/gyro/adis16080.c
> index 1b84b8e112fe1..f38f9abcccbb5 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/gyro/adis16080.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/gyro/adis16080.c
> @@ -38,14 +38,14 @@ struct adis16080_chip_info {
>   * @us:			actual spi_device to write data
>   * @info:		chip specific parameters
>   * @buf:		transmit or receive buffer
> - * @lock		lock to protect buffer during reads
> + * @lock:		lock to protect buffer during reads
>   **/
>  struct adis16080_state {
>  	struct spi_device		*us;
>  	const struct adis16080_chip_info *info;
>  	struct mutex			lock;
>  
> -	__be16 buf ____cacheline_aligned;
> +	__be16 ____cacheline_aligned buf;
>  };
>  
>  static int adis16080_read_sample(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,