Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:35:09 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from
 struct gpio_desc
Message-ID: <ZXsSnTcnAsopYodl@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <CAMRc=Mfri8K4ZqcHb_eQY6gi+q_-uBZc2wiMrrb-+a7Tric3FA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXnU3tMYCc2Rw8Qv@rigel>
 <ZXnX8jPHxRLW8lhi@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=Mfj_4YvQVP=UWkULBwJniDDjapttU+qSgqfN5ZWNgikKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXnb-ks_noYLWZZ2@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=MfaHKKKNkXW0L1FPjCH4VvG22Vn9q8z9tupZCtCEKZU2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXoO8B0N3S49GnvX@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <ZXpJueTnmtUIecCd@rigel>
 <ZXplMThBSD53UV0s@rigel>
 <CAMRc=MeZg0xg7ASA3x4PxCYymCmCEp0zZbUgGTCCzrjPaPZCag@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=MeZg0xg7ASA3x4PxCYymCmCEp0zZbUgGTCCzrjPaPZCag@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:40:26AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:15 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:18:01AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:07:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:03:44PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > > > > - it adds complications for no benefit
> > >
> > > It provides a placeholder for collective documentation and clarifies
> > > scope for the reader.
> >
> > Turns out kernel-doc can't deal with a struct variable declaration - it
> > needs the struct to be named.
> >
> > So this doesn't parse:
> >
> > static struct {
> >         struct rb_root tree;
> >         spinlock_t lock;
> > } supinfo;
> >
> > but this does:
> >
> > static struct supinfo {
> >         struct rb_root tree;
> >         spinlock_t lock;
> > } supinfo;
> >
> > at which point I prefer the separate struct and var declarations as per
> > the patch.
> >
> > Opinions?
> 
> Yeah, don't make it a kernel doc. It's a private structure, no need to
> expose documentation for it in docs. Just use a regular comment - say
> what it is and why it's here.

I agree with Bart, make it plain comment if needed.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko