[PATCH] A simple doc fix

[Andrey Grodzovsky]

On 2022-09-14 15:26, Anup K Parikh wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:24:36AM -0400, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
>> On 2022-09-14 06:36, Anup K Parikh wrote:
>>> Fix two warnings during doc build which also results in corresponding
>>> additions in generated docs
>>>
>>> Warnings Fixed:
>>> 1. include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h:462: warning: Function parameter or member
>>>      'dev' not described in 'drm_gpu_scheduler'
>>> 2. drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c:1005: warning: Function
>>>      parameter or member 'dev' not described in 'drm_sched_init'
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anup K Parikh <parikhanupk.foss at gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 1 +
>>>    include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h            | 1 +
>>>    2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>>> index 68317d3a7a27..875d00213849 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>>> @@ -994,6 +994,7 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param)
>>>     *		used
>>>     * @score: optional score atomic shared with other schedulers
>>>     * @name: name used for debugging
>>> + * @dev: A device pointer for use in error reporting in a multiple GPU scenario.
>>
>> Why multiple GPUs scenario ? It's also used in single GPU scenario.
>>
>> Andrey
>>
>>
> Hello Mr. Andrey Grodzovsky,
>
> Thanks for the quick review and response.
>
> My documentation string (same for both files) is based on commit id
> 8ab62eda177bc350f34fea4fcea23603b8184bfd. It seemed that both warnings
> might've been introduced by the addition of that device pointer.
>
> Also, the commit message specifically mentions this addition for use with
> DRM_DEV_ERROR() to make life easier under a multiple GPU scenario. So, I
> used cscope to look for DRM_DEV_ERROR() and then for drm_dev_printk(). I
> also checked previous versions of both files and noticed DRM_ERROR() in
> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c changed to DRM_DEV_ERROR().
>
> Perhaps, I wrongly correlated my cscope/history findings with the commit
> message and used absolute wording. I guess that this might be (I usually
> avoid absolute wording) useful not only in a single GPU scenario (to print
> better standardized messages with dev when available) but also in non-error
> printing such as with KERN_NOTICE, KERN_INFO, etc. I'm still not sure if
> the added device pointer could be used for something else besides printing.
>
> Please let me know if my understanding is correct and whether I should
> change the wording to:
>
> A device pointer - primarily useful for printing standardized messages with
> DRM_DEV_ERROR().

It could be used for many other things but in this case in deed used 
only for the print.
So yep - looks good.

Andrey


>>>     *
>>>     * Return 0 on success, otherwise error code.
>>>     */
>>> diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
>>> index addb135eeea6..920b91fd1719 100644
>>> --- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
>>> +++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
>>> @@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ struct drm_sched_backend_ops {
>>>     * @_score: score used when the driver doesn't provide one
>>>     * @ready: marks if the underlying HW is ready to work
>>>     * @free_guilty: A hit to time out handler to free the guilty job.
>>> + * @dev: A device pointer for use in error reporting in a multiple GPU scenario.
>>>     *
>>>     * One scheduler is implemented for each hardware ring.
>>>     */