Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Message-ID: <1d0ab3e1-915a-4dcc-bc7b-86dd7cae2ea1@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 8 Oct 2023 20:34:43 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau: fix kernel-doc warning
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>, kherbst@redhat.com,
        lyude@redhat.com, dakr@redhat.com,
        maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, mripard@kernel.org,
        tzimmermann@suse.de, airlied@gmail.com, daniel@ffwll.ch
Cc:     dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231008070618.20640-1-bragathemanick0908@gmail.com>
 <ZSK4eNUPYIqPF3fM@debian.me>
From:   Bragatheswaran Manickavel <bragathemanick0908@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZSK4eNUPYIqPF3fM@debian.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 08/10/23 19:37, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/8/23 00:06, Bragatheswaran Manickavel wrote:
>> Identified below document warning in latest linux-next.
>> ./include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h:49: warning: Cannot understand
>> * @NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_EXEC_PUSH_MAX: on line 49 - I thought it was a doc line
>>
>> Also, on running checkpatch.pl to nouveau_drm.h identified
>> few more warnings/errors and fixing them in this patch
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bragatheswaran Manickavel <bragathemanick0908@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h | 8 ++++----
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h
>> index eaf9f248619f..a523ca5aa865 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h
>> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ extern "C" {
>>   #define NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_HAS_PAGEFLIP    16
>>   
>>   /**
>> - * @NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_EXEC_PUSH_MAX
>> + * NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_EXEC_PUSH_MAX:
> Yes, this does quieten the kernel-doc warning, but the produced html output
> is not correct.
>
> I had sent a patch for this but it was incomplete (missing full commit message).
> I have just sent a v2:
>    https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231008140231.17921-1-rdunlap@infradead.org/
Okay, Thanks Randy

On 08/10/23 19:41, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 12:36:18PM +0530, Bragatheswaran Manickavel wrote:
>> @@ -458,15 +458,15 @@ struct drm_nouveau_svm_bind {
>>   
>>   #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GETPARAM           DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GETPARAM, struct drm_nouveau_getparam)
>>   #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_ALLOC      DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_ALLOC, struct drm_nouveau_channel_alloc)
>> -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE       DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE, struct drm_nouveau_channel_free)
>> +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE       DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE, struct drm_nouveau_channel_free)
>>   
>>   #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_SVM_INIT           DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_SVM_INIT, struct drm_nouveau_svm_init)
>>   #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_SVM_BIND           DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_SVM_BIND, struct drm_nouveau_svm_bind)
>>   
>>   #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW            DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW, struct drm_nouveau_gem_new)
>>   #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_PUSHBUF        DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_PUSHBUF, struct drm_nouveau_gem_pushbuf)
>> -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP       DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_prep)
>> -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI       DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_fini)
>> +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP       DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_prep)
>> +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI       DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_fini)
>>   #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_INFO           DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_INFO, struct drm_nouveau_gem_info)
>>   
>>   #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_VM_INIT            DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_VM_INIT, struct drm_nouveau_vm_init)
> Can you please split checkpatch fix above into separate patch
Hi Bagas,
Sure, will do that and send it as new patch.


Thanks,
Bragathe