On Mon, 15 Dec 2025, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 12/15/25 11:21 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2025, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > >> Hi Ilpo, > >> > >> On 12/15/25 6:10 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > >>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2025, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >>> > >>>> Fix kernel-doc warnings in intel_vsec.h to eliminate all kernel-doc > >>>> warnings: > >>>> > >>>> Warning: include/linux/intel_vsec.h:92 struct member 'read_telem' not > >>>> described in 'pmt_callbacks' > >>>> Warning: include/linux/intel_vsec.h:146 expecting prototype for struct > >>>> intel_sec_device. Prototype was for struct intel_vsec_device instead > >>>> Warning: include/linux/intel_vsec.h:146 struct member 'priv_data_size' > >>>> not described in 'intel_vsec_device' > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap > >>>> --- > >>>> Cc: David E. Box > >>>> Cc: Hans de Goede > >>>> Cc: Ilpo Järvinen > >>>> Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org > >>>> --- > >>>> include/linux/intel_vsec.h | 7 ++++--- > >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> --- linux-next-20251201.orig/include/linux/intel_vsec.h > >>>> +++ linux-next-20251201/include/linux/intel_vsec.h > >>>> @@ -80,8 +80,8 @@ enum intel_vsec_quirks { > >>>> > >>>> /** > >>>> * struct pmt_callbacks - Callback infrastructure for PMT devices > >>>> - * ->read_telem() when specified, called by client driver to access PMT data (instead > >>>> - * of direct copy). > >>>> + * @read_telem: when specified, called by client driver to access PMT > >>>> + * data (instead of direct copy). > >>>> * @pdev: PCI device reference for the callback's use > >>>> * @guid: ID of data to acccss > >>>> * @data: buffer for the data to be copied > >>> > >>> Is it correct for kerneldoc to have the rest as @pdev, @guid, etc., > >>> they are parameters to the callback, not members of this struct? > >> > >> No, it's not correct. We get away with it in several kernel source files > >> because scripts/kernel-doc doesn't check/notice that. > >> > >> Would you prefer to have them there but without the leading '@' sign? > >> Or completely delete those lines? > >> IMO they are useful/informative, so I would rather not delete them. > > > > Can we use some * * formatting trick to them as well as remove the @. I'm > > not sure how kernel doc deals with formatting * * within the parameters > > paragraph but if it works like in return formatting, I guess that would > > seem like the most useful approach. > > > > If it doesn't work, then just remove @, I think. > > [testing] > > The struct members are not formatted like Returns: formatting. Thanks for testing. Lets go with example b, that looks most readable out of the options. > a. If I just drop the at-sign, the struct member descriptions all run > together, no breaks between them. Not acceptable IMO. > > b. If I use "* *" before each struct member, the struct member > descriptions still run together but there is a "*" separator > character between them. > > c. If I end each struct member description with a '.' (just one > leading '*'), the struct member descriptions run together but > there is an ending '.' between them. > > d. If I use "* @member" for each struct member, kernel-doc seems > to ignore those lines completely. No output is produced for those > lines. > > So I think we are down to using "* *" for each struct member or > using "* member: Description." so that there is a separator between > each struct member description. Do you have a preference? > > Example for b: > > read_telem when specified, called by client driver to access PMT data > (instead of direct copy). * pdev: PCI device reference for > the callback's use * guid: ID of data to acccss * data: > buffer for the data to be copied * off: offset into the > requested buffer * count: size of buffer > > Example for c: > > read_telem when specified, called by client driver to access PMT data > (instead of direct copy). pdev: PCI device reference for > the callback's use. guid: ID of data to acccss. data: > Buffer for the data to be copied. off: Offset into the > requested buffer. count: Size of buffer. > > Or we could just drop the patch if you don't care for any of these. > > thanks. > -- i.