[Intel-gfx] [drm-intel:for-linux-next-fixes 3/4] DockBook: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c:107: warning: Excess function parameter 'dev' description in 'DRM_OUTPUT_POLL_PERIOD'

[Egbert Eich]

Jani Nikula writes:
 > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
 > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:09:04PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
 > >> tree:   git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel for-linux-next-fixes
 > >> head:   ad96c5f13442b17fafccc30f81efae2f08351f99
 > >> commit: 10d3a5618b3aba24d6388ccdff2d0182b72a6e8d [3/4] drm: Add a non-locking version of drm_kms_helper_poll_enable(), v2
 > >> reproduce: make htmldocs
 > >> 
 > >> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
 > 
 > Cc: Jonathan and Danilo, and including the kernel-doc in question for
 > reference:
 > 
 > /**
 >  * drm_kms_helper_poll_enable_locked - re-enable output polling.
 >  * @dev: drm_device
 >  *
 >  * This function re-enables the output polling work without
 >  * locking the mode_config mutex.
 >  *
 >  * This is like drm_kms_helper_poll_enable() however it is to be
 >  * called from a context where the mode_config mutex is locked
 >  * already.
 >  */
 > #define DRM_OUTPUT_POLL_PERIOD (10*HZ)
 > void drm_kms_helper_poll_enable_locked(struct drm_device *dev)
 > {
 > 	...
 > 
 > >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c:107: warning: Excess function parameter 'dev' description in 'DRM_OUTPUT_POLL_PERIOD'
 > >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c:107: warning: Excess function parameter 'dev' description in 'DRM_OUTPUT_POLL_PERIOD'
 > >
 > > I think this should be fixed by moving the DRM_OUTPUT_POLL_PERIOD #define
 > > before the kerneldoc for drm_kms_helper_poll_enable_locked. Jani, can you
 > > please do that fixup and check that make htmldocs is happy with it?
 > 
 > Can do.
 > 
 > However, having such #defines right above the only function that uses
 > them is not uncommon. Since there is no documentation for
 > DRM_OUTPUT_POLL_PERIOD, and the documentation for the function includes
 > the function name, I am wondering if kernel-doc could be made smarter
 > about this.
 > 

It is actually used twice in this file by two functions not immediately adjacent.
Why not move it to the beginning of the file?

Cheers,
	Egbert.