Re: [PATCH] docs: checkpatch: Document and segregate more checkpatch message types

On Sat, 2021-06-05 at 11:29 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:

Add and document more checkpatch message types. About 50% of all
message types are documented now.

[]

[]

+  **DEVICE_ATTR_FUNCTIONS**
+    The function names used in DEVICE_ATTR is unusual.
+    Typically, the store and show functions are named as name_store and
+    name_show, where name is the device name.

No, it's the variable name of an attribute of a device, not the device name.

    Typically, the store and show functions are used with <attr>_store and
    <attr>_show, where <attr> is a named attribute variable of the device.

+    Consider the following examples::
+
+      static DEVICE_ATTR(type, 0444, type_show, NULL);
+      static DEVICE_ATTR(power, 0644, power_show, power_store);
+
+    The function names should preferably follow the above pattern.
+
+    See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/driver-model/device.html#attributes
+
+  **DEVICE_ATTR_RO**
+    The DEVICE_ATTR_RO(name) helper macro can be used in place of
+    DEVICE_ATTR(name, 0444, name_show, NULL);
+
+    Note that the macro automatically appends _show to the device name
+    for the show method.

attribute, etc...

+  **ENOSYS**
+    ENOSYS means that a nonexistent system call was called.  We have a
+    bad habit of using it for things like invalid operations on
+    otherwise valid syscalls.  This should be avoided in new code.

Please do not use terms like "we".  Just use passive voice and not
any first person/collective words.

+
+    See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5eb299021dec23c1a48fa7d9f2c8b794e967766d.1408730669.git.luto@amacapital.net/ (local)
+
+  **ENOTSUPP**
+    ENOTSUPP is not a standard error code and should be avoided in new patches.
+    EOPNOTSUPP should be used instead.

Better word choice is like this section above.