Em Tue, 16 Feb 2021 19:12:58 +0200
Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] escreveu:

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 7:05 PM Jonathan Corbet [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] writes:
 

quoted

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:51 PM Jonathan Corbet [off-list ref] wrote:  

quoted

quoted

Mauro, can you do some test cases in your workflow against anonymous
enum in ernel doc, please?

They are broken again, please fix the script!

drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c:204: warning: wrong kernel-doc
identifier on line:
* enum - Locking variants of the pad configuration

Above is simply a wrong statement.  

The real problem, perhaps, is that there seems to be little point in
adding kerneldoc comments for anonymous enums; where are you going to
use that documentation?  

I had been explicitly told during review (IIRC by maintainers) to make
it such, while the initial version was exactly like you are thinking
of. So, I'm not the right person to be asked :-)  

Just for a reference [1].

quoted

quoted

quoted

 The error message could perhaps be changed to
say that; meanwhile, perhaps this one could be fixed with an action like
s%/**%/*% ?  

See above. I think regression comes from the kernel doc script,
earlier it was okay. That said, the author of kernel doc changes has
to submit a patch to amend the driver and maintainers will review it.  

kerneldoc now warns about various incorrect things that it used to just
silently pass over.  There is no regression here, just a new diagnostic
to point out something that was never going to work right.  Unless you
have a good idea for what kerneldoc should do with a block like that?  

As it does, put description of individual fields and prepend it with a
common part.

So,

enum - Bla bla bla
 @FOO: ABC
 @BAR: DEF
Description

Should go in the doc for the corresponding file like (as an example)

Anonymous enumeration Bla bla bla
Description

FOO ABC
BAR DEF

(not sure about indentation, emphasizing and separators, but I think
you got the idea).

quoted

(An alternative fix, of course, would be to give the enum a name so it
can actually be used for type checking.)  

That enum is not used as an enum, it provides the logically unified constants.

What's the problem of giving it a name?

You could call it as "intel_pinctrl_pad" or something similar.

Personally I don't see why the kernel doc can't digest this.

It is not hard to add support for this special case. Just sent a
patch.

Yet, this adds additional complexity on an script that it is
already complex enough.

[1]: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/20190808132128.13359-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/

Thanks,
Mauro