Bragatheswaran Manickavel
2023-Oct-08 07:06 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH] drm/nouveau: fix kernel-doc warning
Identified below document warning in latest linux-next. ./include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h:49: warning: Cannot understand * @NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_EXEC_PUSH_MAX: on line 49 - I thought it was a doc line Also, on running checkpatch.pl to nouveau_drm.h identified few more warnings/errors and fixing them in this patch Signed-off-by: Bragatheswaran Manickavel <bragathemanick0908 at gmail.com> --- include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h index eaf9f248619f..a523ca5aa865 100644 --- a/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h +++ b/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ extern "C" { #define NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_HAS_PAGEFLIP 16 /** - * @NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_EXEC_PUSH_MAX + * NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_EXEC_PUSH_MAX: * * Query the maximum amount of IBs that can be pushed through a single * &drm_nouveau_exec structure and hence a single &DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_EXEC @@ -458,15 +458,15 @@ struct drm_nouveau_svm_bind { #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GETPARAM DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GETPARAM, struct drm_nouveau_getparam) #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_ALLOC DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_ALLOC, struct drm_nouveau_channel_alloc) -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE, struct drm_nouveau_channel_free) +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE, struct drm_nouveau_channel_free) #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_SVM_INIT DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_SVM_INIT, struct drm_nouveau_svm_init) #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_SVM_BIND DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_SVM_BIND, struct drm_nouveau_svm_bind) #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW, struct drm_nouveau_gem_new) #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_PUSHBUF DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_PUSHBUF, struct drm_nouveau_gem_pushbuf) -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_prep) -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_fini) +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_prep) +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_fini) #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_INFO DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_INFO, struct drm_nouveau_gem_info) #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_VM_INIT DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_VM_INIT, struct drm_nouveau_vm_init) -- 2.34.1
Hi, On 10/8/23 00:06, Bragatheswaran Manickavel wrote:> Identified below document warning in latest linux-next. > ./include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h:49: warning: Cannot understand > * @NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_EXEC_PUSH_MAX: on line 49 - I thought it was a doc line > > Also, on running checkpatch.pl to nouveau_drm.h identified > few more warnings/errors and fixing them in this patch > > Signed-off-by: Bragatheswaran Manickavel <bragathemanick0908 at gmail.com> > --- > include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h > index eaf9f248619f..a523ca5aa865 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h > +++ b/include/uapi/drm/nouveau_drm.h > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ extern "C" { > #define NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_HAS_PAGEFLIP 16 > > /** > - * @NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_EXEC_PUSH_MAX > + * NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_EXEC_PUSH_MAX:Yes, this does quieten the kernel-doc warning, but the produced html output is not correct. I had sent a patch for this but it was incomplete (missing full commit message). I have just sent a v2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231008140231.17921-1-rdunlap at infradead.org/> * > * Query the maximum amount of IBs that can be pushed through a single > * &drm_nouveau_exec structure and hence a single &DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_EXEC > @@ -458,15 +458,15 @@ struct drm_nouveau_svm_bind { > > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GETPARAM DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GETPARAM, struct drm_nouveau_getparam) > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_ALLOC DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_ALLOC, struct drm_nouveau_channel_alloc) > -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE, struct drm_nouveau_channel_free) > +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE, struct drm_nouveau_channel_free) > > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_SVM_INIT DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_SVM_INIT, struct drm_nouveau_svm_init) > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_SVM_BIND DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_SVM_BIND, struct drm_nouveau_svm_bind) > > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW, struct drm_nouveau_gem_new) > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_PUSHBUF DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_PUSHBUF, struct drm_nouveau_gem_pushbuf) > -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_prep) > -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_fini) > +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_prep) > +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_fini) > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_INFO DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_INFO, struct drm_nouveau_gem_info) > > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_VM_INIT DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_VM_INIT, struct drm_nouveau_vm_init)-- ~Randy
On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 12:36:18PM +0530, Bragatheswaran Manickavel wrote:> @@ -458,15 +458,15 @@ struct drm_nouveau_svm_bind { > > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GETPARAM DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GETPARAM, struct drm_nouveau_getparam) > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_ALLOC DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_ALLOC, struct drm_nouveau_channel_alloc) > -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE, struct drm_nouveau_channel_free) > +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_CHANNEL_FREE, struct drm_nouveau_channel_free) > > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_SVM_INIT DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_SVM_INIT, struct drm_nouveau_svm_init) > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_SVM_BIND DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_SVM_BIND, struct drm_nouveau_svm_bind) > > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW, struct drm_nouveau_gem_new) > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_PUSHBUF DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_PUSHBUF, struct drm_nouveau_gem_pushbuf) > -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_prep) > -#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI DRM_IOW (DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_fini) > +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_prep) > +#define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI DRM_IOW(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_FINI, struct drm_nouveau_gem_cpu_fini) > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_GEM_INFO DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_INFO, struct drm_nouveau_gem_info) > > #define DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_VM_INIT DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_NOUVEAU_VM_INIT, struct drm_nouveau_vm_init)Can you please split checkpatch fix above into separate patch? -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nouveau/attachments/20231008/5f3b9216/attachment.sig>