[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 05/39] drm/i915: display: fix kernel-doc markup warnings

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 18:05:06 -0400
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 09:11:53AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > There are a couple of issues at i915 display kernel-doc markups:
> > 
> > 	drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c:2238: warning: Function parameter or member 'intel_connector' not described in 'intel_connector_debugfs_add'
> > 	drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c:2238: warning: Excess function parameter 'connector' description in 'intel_connector_debugfs_add'
> > 	drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c:700: warning: expecting prototype for intel_display_power_put_async(). Prototype was for __intel_display_power_put_async() instead
> > 	drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c:807: warning: Function parameter or member 'work' not described in 'intel_tc_port_disconnect_phy_work'
> > 	drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c:807: warning: Excess function parameter 'dig_port' description in 'intel_tc_port_disconnect_phy_work'
> > 
> > Those are due to wrong parameter of function name. Address them.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab at kernel.org>
> > ---
> > 
> > To avoid mailbombing on a large number of people, only mailing lists were C/C on the cover.
> > See [PATCH v2 00/39] at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1657699522.git.mchehab@kernel.org/
> > 
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c | 2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c   | 2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_tc.c              | 2 +-
> >  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
> > index 6c3954479047..1e35eb01742b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_debugfs.c
> > @@ -2229,7 +2229,7 @@ DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(i915_current_bpc);
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * intel_connector_debugfs_add - add i915 specific connector debugfs files
> > - * @connector: pointer to a registered drm_connector
> > + * @intel_connector: pointer to a registered drm_connector
> >   *
> >   * Cleanup will be done by drm_connector_unregister() through a call to
> >   * drm_debugfs_connector_remove().
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > index 589af257edeb..fd6b71160a06 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ intel_display_power_put_async_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > - * intel_display_power_put_async - release a power domain reference asynchronously
> > + * __intel_display_power_put_async - release a power domain reference asynchronously  
> 
> oh, we are really using __ prefix for non-static functions?! o.O

Yeah... Btw, this is actually a common practice to have __ prefix on
non-static and even on exported functions. Usually, the __ variant
assumes that a spinlock/mutex were already taken previously.

However, that's not the case here, as it starts holding a mutex.

In this specific case, the __ variant is called by an inline
function on a different way, depending if 
CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_RUNTIME_PM is true. On such case, it passes 
the runtime PM wakeref, otherwise it passes a -1.

Funny enough, intel_display_power_put() ifdef is inside the C
file, using a different implementation:

#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_RUNTIME_PM)
	...
	void intel_display_power_put(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
        	                     enum intel_display_power_domain domain,
                	             intel_wakeref_t wakeref)
	...
#else
	...
	void intel_display_power_put_unchecked(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
                                       enum intel_display_power_domain domain)
	...
#endif

For consistency, I would use the same solution for both, probably
at the C file, and avoiding use a __ prefix for the async put version.

> anyway, with that ditto "()" consistency,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>

Thanks!

Btw, I'm removing "()" from patches 1-3 (both at descriptions and
internally), keeping your R-B on them too.

Regards,
Mauro