Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 May 2018 14:02:36 +0200 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 16/18] mtd: rawnand.h: use nested union kernel-doc markups |
| |
On Mon, 7 May 2018 08:32:32 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi Boris, > > Em Mon, 7 May 2018 11:46:50 +0200 > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> escreveu: > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > 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. > > > 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
| |