From: Colton Lewis <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:02:30 +0000
> On Sunday, June 21, 2020 10:53:45 AM CDT Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
>> > ---
>> > */
>> > struct phylink_config {
>> > struct device *dev;
>> > @@ -331,7 +333,7 @@ void pcs_get_state(struct phylink_config *config,
>> > *
>> > * For most 10GBASE-R, there is no advertisement.
>> > */
>> > -int (*pcs_config)(struct phylink_config *config, unsigned int mode,
>> > +int *pcs_config(struct phylink_config *config, unsigned int mode,
>> > phy_interface_t interface, const unsigned long *advertising);
>>
>> *Definitely* a NAK on this and two changes below. You're changing the
>> function signature to be incorrect. If the documentation can't parse
>> a legitimate C function pointer declaration and allow it to be
>> documented, then that's a problem with the documentation's parsing of
>> C code, rather than a problem with the C code itself.
>
> I realize this changes the signature, but this declaration is not compiled.
> It is under an #if 0 with a comment stating it exists for kernel-doc purposes
> only. The *real* function pointer declaration exists in struct
> phylink_pcs_ops.
>
> Given the declaration is there exclusively for documentation, it makes sense
> to change it so the documentation system can parse it.
I agree with Russell, if the C code can't be accurately represented you
make things worse for people trying to actually _use_ the documentation.
Can't you escape the parenthesis or something like that?
If you can't make it look accurate, leave it alone.
