On Mon, 7 May 2018 08:32:32 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Boris,

Em Mon, 7 May 2018 11:46:50 +0200
Boris Brezillon [off-list ref] escreveu:

quoted

Hi Mauro,  

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
index 5dad59b31244..b986f94906df 100644
--- a/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h
+++ b/include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h

@@ -740,8 +740,9 @@ enum nand_data_interface_type {
 
 /**
  * struct nand_data_interface - NAND interface timing
- * @type:	type of the timing
- * @timings:	The timing, type according to @type
+ * @type:	 type of the timing
+ * @timings:	 The timing, type according to @type
+ * @timings.sdr: Use it when @type is %NAND_SDR_IFACE.    

Hm, really feels weird to do that. I mean, either we describe
timings.sdr or timings, but not both. I this case, I agree that
describing timings.sdr would make more sense than generically
describing any possible entries in the timings union.  

This struct is funny, as the union has just one item. I assume
that the original intend is to be ready to have more timing
types (or you had it in the past). By the time you have a
second value there, describing the union would make more
sense.

quoted

Is there a simple
way we can get rid of the warning we have when not describing timings
but all of its fields?  

There's no direct way. It won't be hard to add a way to do it,
like applying the enclosed patch with ends by declaring timings as:

	* @timings:	 -- undescribed --

IMHO, this is uglier.

Yep, don't like it either. I'll just take your initial patch.

Thanks,

Boris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html