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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHp75VfpnGEZcnrQLFYaFQ-HuxTmPw5OnewKmRGfXQf__ztjww@mail.gmail.com>
 <87r1lgx8fo.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <87r1lgx8fo.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:59:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vc0SwC=WxUOiokUik1G4uPE6bHfX_F_ckgp-eEJaVuWhA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: anonymous enums in kernel doc
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Documentation List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:51 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>
> > Mauro, can you do some test cases in your workflow against anonymous
> > enum in ernel doc, please?
> >
> > They are broken again, please fix the script!
> >
> > drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c:204: warning: wrong kernel-doc
> > identifier on line:
> > * enum - Locking variants of the pad configuration
> >
> > Above is simply a wrong statement.
>
> The real problem, perhaps, is that there seems to be little point in
> adding kerneldoc comments for anonymous enums; where are you going to
> use that documentation?

I had been explicitly told during review (IIRC by maintainers) to make
it such, while the initial version was exactly like you are thinking
of. So, I'm not the right person to be asked :-)

>  The error message could perhaps be changed to
> say that; meanwhile, perhaps this one could be fixed with an action like
> s%/**%/*% ?

See above. I think regression comes from the kernel doc script,
earlier it was okay. That said, the author of kernel doc changes has
to submit a patch to amend the driver and maintainers will review it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko