[PATCH v4 09/12] watchdog: s3c2410: Cleanup PMU related code

[Guenter Roeck]

On 11/23/21 8:17 AM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 18:06, Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:
>>> Now that PMU enablement code was extended for new Exynos SoCs, it
>>> doesn't look very cohesive and consistent anymore. Do a bit of renaming,
>>> grouping and style changes, to make it look good again. While at it, add
>>> quirks documentation as well.
>>>
>>> No functional change, just a refactoring commit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko at linaro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at canonical.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v4:
>>>    - Added R-b tag by Guenter Roeck
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>>    - Added quirks documentation
>>>    - Added R-b tag by Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>>    - (none): it's a new patch
>>>
>>>   drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>   1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> index ec341c876225..f211be8bf976 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> @@ -56,17 +56,51 @@
>>>   #define EXYNOS5_RST_STAT_REG_OFFSET          0x0404
>>>   #define EXYNOS5_WDT_DISABLE_REG_OFFSET               0x0408
>>>   #define EXYNOS5_WDT_MASK_RESET_REG_OFFSET    0x040c
>>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_PMU_CONFIG                 (1 << 0)
>>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_RST_STAT                   (1 << 1)
>>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG                       (1 << 2)
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>
>> 0-day complains:
>>
>> drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c:94: warning: expecting prototype for Quirk flags for different Samsung watchdog IP(). Prototype was for QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG() instead
>>
>> It doesn't seem to like the idea of documented bit masks. Not really sure
>> what to do here. I am inclined to ignore it, but I don't want to get flooded
>> by 0-day complaints until I retire either. Any idea ?
>>
> 
> Seems like 0-day thinks this kernel-doc comment is for the first
> define only, and thus the comment has wrong format, or something like
> that. I tried to follow the same style as GFP_KERNEL and others are
> documented.
> 
> Anyway, if you don't like 0-day complaints, can you please just
> replace kernel-doc comment (/**) with regular comment (/*), by
> removing one asterisk in the patch? Or I can re-send the patch
> correspondingly -- then just let me know.
> 

Oh, never mind. Let's just hope that 0-day stops complaining at some point.

Guenter