# \[PATCH\] powerpc/eeh:Fix some mistakes in comments

- Subsystems: LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT), PCI ENHANCED ERROR HANDLING (EEH) FOR POWERPC, THE REST
- Maintainers: Madhavan Srinivasan, Mahesh J Salgaonkar, Linus Torvalds
- List: linuxppc-dev
- 3 messages, 3 authors
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2021/09/1522228/t

## \[PATCH\] powerpc/eeh:Fix some mistakes in comments

- From: Kai Song \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-09-27 02:35:39 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2021/09/1522228.md

```text
Get rid of warning:
arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c:774: warning: expecting prototype for eeh_set_pe_freset(). Prototype was for eeh_set_dev_freset() instead

Signed-off-by: Kai Song <redacted>
---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
index e9b597ed423c..4cd4acb049ec 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
@@ -761,8 +761,8 @@ int pcibios_set_pcie_reset_state(struct pci_dev *dev, enum pcie_reset_state stat
 }
 
 /**
- * eeh_set_pe_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
- * @data: EEH device
+ * eeh_set_dev_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
+ * @edev: EEH device
  * @flag: return value
  *
  * Each device might have its preferred reset type: fundamental or
-- 
2.27.0

```

## Re: \[PATCH\] powerpc/eeh:Fix some mistakes in comments

- From: Daniel Axtens \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-09-30 06:31:53 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2021/09/1526597.md

```text
Hi Kai,

Thank you for your contribution to the powerpc kernel!

> Get rid of warning:
> arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c:774: warning: expecting prototype for eeh_set_pe_freset(). Prototype was for eeh_set_dev_freset() instead

You haven't said where this warning is from. I thought it might be from
sparse but I couldn't seem to reproduce it - is my version of sparse too
old or are you using a different tool?

>  /**
> - * eeh_set_pe_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
> - * @data: EEH device
> + * eeh_set_dev_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
> + * @edev: EEH device
>   * @flag: return value
>   *
>   * Each device might have its preferred reset type: fundamental or

This looks like a good and correct change.

I checked through git history with git blame to see when the function
was renamed. There are 2 commits that should have updated the comment:
one renamed the function and one renamed an argument. So, I think this
commit could have:

Fixes: d6c4932fbf24 ("powerpc/eeh: Strengthen types of eeh traversal functions")
Fixes: c270a24c59bd ("powerpc/eeh: Do reset based on PE")

But I don't know if an out of date comment is enough of a 'bug' to
justify a Fixes: tag? (mpe, I'm sure I've asked this before, sorry!)

All up, this is a good correction to the comment.

There are a few other functions in the file that have incorrect
docstrings:

 - eeh_pci_enable - missing parameter

 - eeh_pe_reset and eeh_pe_reset_full - missing parameter

 - eeh_init - missing parameter

 - eeh_pe_inject_err - wrong name for a parameter

Could you fix all of the docstrings in the file at once?

Kind regards,
Daniel

```

## Re: \[PATCH\] powerpc/eeh:Fix some mistakes in comments

- From: Michael Ellerman \<mpe@ellerman.id.au\>
- Date: 2021-10-07 12:55:31 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2021/10/1534015.md

```text
Daniel Axtens [ref] writes:
> Hi Kai,
>
> Thank you for your contribution to the powerpc kernel!
>
>> Get rid of warning:
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c:774: warning: expecting prototype for eeh_set_pe_freset(). Prototype was for eeh_set_dev_freset() instead
>
> You haven't said where this warning is from. I thought it might be from
> sparse but I couldn't seem to reproduce it - is my version of sparse too
> old or are you using a different tool?
>
>>  /**
>> - * eeh_set_pe_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
>> - * @data: EEH device
>> + * eeh_set_dev_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
>> + * @edev: EEH device
>>   * @flag: return value
>>   *
>>   * Each device might have its preferred reset type: fundamental or
>
> This looks like a good and correct change.
>
> I checked through git history with git blame to see when the function
> was renamed. There are 2 commits that should have updated the comment:
> one renamed the function and one renamed an argument. So, I think this
> commit could have:
>
> Fixes: d6c4932fbf24 ("powerpc/eeh: Strengthen types of eeh traversal functions")
> Fixes: c270a24c59bd ("powerpc/eeh: Do reset based on PE")
>
> But I don't know if an out of date comment is enough of a 'bug' to
> justify a Fixes: tag? (mpe, I'm sure I've asked this before, sorry!)

It depends. If you think it's important that the fix gets backported
then you should add the Fixes tag.

In this case I would say no. The comments have been broken for years,
and it's a pretty obscure API.

cheers
```