From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com ([64.235.106.9]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1TfrNg-0005di-52 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:13:44 +0000 Received: from cpebcc81008dd2c-cmbcc81008dd29.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([99.253.156.71]:38704 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TfrNf-0007w2-6D for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:13:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:13:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: apparent inconsistency in barebox doc content To: "U-Boot Version 2 (barebox)" i'm not familiar with the in-barebox documentation (the "@brief" and "@return" stuff), i'm assuming that's similar to kerneldoc, yes? so this snippet in arch/arm/boards/beagle/board.c doesn't look right: ,... snip ... * * @return void */ static int beagle_board_init(void) { ... snip ... am i right in concluding there's a mismatch there? and should i flag anywhere else i run across mismatches like that? rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox