On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s): > > > > drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c:26: warning: Function parameter or > > member 'req' not described in 'sun6i_get_ar100_factors' > > > > Cc: "Emilio López" <[email protected]> > > Cc: Michael Turquette <[email protected]> > > Cc: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> > > Cc: Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> > > Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <[email protected]> > > Cc: Jernej Skrabec <[email protected]> > > Cc: Boris BREZILLON <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > index e1b7d0929cf7f..54babc2b4b9ee 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun6i-ar100.c > > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ > > > > #include "clk-factors.h" > > > > -/** > > +/* > > * sun6i_get_ar100_factors - Calculates factors p, m for AR100 > > * > > * AR100 rate is calculated as follows > > This is the sixth patch doing the exact same thing over the files in > that folder you sent. Please fix all the occurences at once
No. That would make the whole clean-up process 10x harder than it already is Before starting this endeavour there were 18,000+ warnings spread over 100's of files and 10's of subsystems that needed addressing (only a couple thousand left now thankfully). Some issues vastly different, some duplicated (much too much copy/pasting going which made things very frustrating at times). Anyway, in order to work though them all gracefully and in a sensible time-frame I had to come up with a workable plan. Each subsystem is compiled separately and a script attempts to take out duplicate warnings and takes me through the build-log one file at a time. Once all of the warnings are fixed in a source-file, it moves on to the next file. The method is clean and allows me to handle this gargantuan task in bite-sized chunks. Going though and pairing up similar changes is unsustainable for a task like this. It would add a lot of additional overhead and would slow down the rate of acceptance since source files tend to have different reviewers/maintainers - some working faster to review patches than others, leading to excessive lag times waiting for that one reviewer who takes weeks to review. Having each file addressed in a separate patch also helps revertability and bisectability. Not such a big problem with the documentation patches, but still. Admittedly doing it this way *can* look a bit odd in *some* patch-sets when they hit the MLs - particularly clock it seems, where there hasn't even been a vague attempt to document any of the parameters in the kernel-doc headers - however the alternative would mean nothing would get done! -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
