This is a series of minor clarifications and formatting tidy ups for
the GPIO uAPI kernel doc.

The series is intended as a companion to my character device
uAPI documentation series, but makes sense on its own too.

The patches are self contained and trivial so not much to add here.

Cheers,
Kent.

Kent Gibson (5):
  gpio: uapi: improve description of fd fields
  gpio: uapi: clarify hte references
  gpio: uapi: drop trailing period from one sentence descriptions
  gpio: uapi: document possible values of gpioevent_data.id
  gpio: uapi: clarify using v2 rather than v1

 include/uapi/linux/gpio.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

-- 
2.39.2

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 3:02 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is a series of minor clarifications and formatting tidy ups for
> the GPIO uAPI kernel doc.
>
> The series is intended as a companion to my character device
> uAPI documentation series, but makes sense on its own too.
>
> The patches are self contained and trivial so not much to add here.
>
> Cheers,
> Kent.
>
> Kent Gibson (5):
>   gpio: uapi: improve description of fd fields
>   gpio: uapi: clarify hte references
>   gpio: uapi: drop trailing period from one sentence descriptions
>   gpio: uapi: document possible values of gpioevent_data.id
>   gpio: uapi: clarify using v2 rather than v1
>
>  include/uapi/linux/gpio.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.39.2
>

Series applied, thanks!

Bart

On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 10:02:16PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> This is a series of minor clarifications and formatting tidy ups for
> the GPIO uAPI kernel doc.
> 
> The series is intended as a companion to my character device
> uAPI documentation series, but makes sense on its own too.
> 
> The patches are self contained and trivial so not much to add here.

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>

for patches starting from the second one.

The first one I personally don't understand why, but I'm not a native speaker!
I believe, it's correct, although the original version seems okay to me.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 04:10:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 10:02:16PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > This is a series of minor clarifications and formatting tidy ups for
> > the GPIO uAPI kernel doc.
> >
> > The series is intended as a companion to my character device
> > uAPI documentation series, but makes sense on its own too.
> >
> > The patches are self contained and trivial so not much to add here.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
>
> for patches starting from the second one.
>
> The first one I personally don't understand why, but I'm not a native speaker!
> I believe, it's correct, although the original version seems okay to me.
>

The problem isn't the language, unless you mean I'm explaining poorly, it
is the logic.  The original says "zero or negative value means error", but
in case of an error the kernel does not actually set the fd.  So if the
user sends a request containing a positive fd they might incorrectly infer
that the positive fd being returned implies success.

The new wording is that the returned fd is only valid on success.

And thanks for the review.

Cheers,
Kent.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 4:20 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 04:10:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 10:02:16PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > This is a series of minor clarifications and formatting tidy ups for
> > > the GPIO uAPI kernel doc.
> > >
> > > The series is intended as a companion to my character device
> > > uAPI documentation series, but makes sense on its own too.
> > >
> > > The patches are self contained and trivial so not much to add here.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
> >
> > for patches starting from the second one.
> >
> > The first one I personally don't understand why, but I'm not a native speaker!
> > I believe, it's correct, although the original version seems okay to me.
>
> The problem isn't the language, unless you mean I'm explaining poorly, it
> is the logic.  The original says "zero or negative value means error", but
> in case of an error the kernel does not actually set the fd.  So if the
> user sends a request containing a positive fd they might incorrectly infer
> that the positive fd being returned implies success.
>
> The new wording is that the returned fd is only valid on success.

Ah, thanks for elaboration, now I understand the issue. Okay, feel
free to extend the Rb to the first patch.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko