On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:54:59PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:45:31PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

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" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <redacted>
Cc: Jernej Skrabec <redacted>
Cc: Boris BREZILLON <redacted>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
 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.

I mean, you have literally used the same commit log and the same changes
over six different files in the same directory. Sure changes across
different parts of the kernel can be painful, but it's really not what
we're discussing here.

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.

Are you arguing that sending the same patch 6 times is easier and faster
to review for the maintainer than the same changes in a single patch?

Having each file addressed in a separate patch also helps
revertability and bisectability. Not such a big problem with the
documentation patches, but still.

There's nothing to revert or bisect, those changes aren't functional
changes.

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!

Yeah, and even though properly documenting the functions would have been
the right way to fix those warnings, I didn't ask you to do that since I
was expecting it to be daunting. Surely we can meet half-way

Maxime