rk_grf_gpio.4: Minor polish

[ziaee]

Summary

Normalize copyright, date, and, wrapping, and document description

Fixes:                  0832a409c (add driver for the RK3328 GPIO_MUTE)
(not yet) Approved by:          shurd

[ziaee]

• Document descriptions are part of titles and should not have crossreferences, this breaks with a wontfix in many implementations, like apropos
• We almost always put "driver" at the end throughout the entire kernel interfaces manual, and consistent apropos results are a big fit and finish polish
• Gpio is already in there from GPIO_MUTE
• The date format is standard and errors on the linter
• The copyright line comes before the SPDX tag per style(9), it's really hard to fix this stuff later and I have to do it often because $dayjob says that I can work on foss but it has to have a standard, valid foss license. Which is also why I love spdx tags because I can't get in trouble over a typo.
• The Roff language asks one sentence per line

[shurd]

Looks good, thanks!

[mhorne]

I ask once again to be mindful of your use of the commit trailers here... The commit does not require "approval" from @shurd, but as the author of the man page (its de-facto maintainer), his "Reviewed by" is meaningful.

Please consult the Committers' Guide to understand when "Approved by" is used. Contrast against the MAINTAINERS file in the root of the src tree.

The use of Fixes: seems good and correct!

From me (assuming the above is fixed):

Reviewed by: mhorne
Approved by: mhorne (mentor)

[ziaee]

Thank you, I thought it does need it because I'm proposing changing the copyright header?

[shurd]

It may be worth noting that the only example of SPDX in style(9) that I see has SPDX before the copyright.

[mhorne]

In D49408#1126804, @ziaee wrote:

Thank you, I thought it does need it because I'm proposing changing the copyright header?

Fair point, if you were changing the copyright itself (either the chosen license or copyright holders) this would require approval. Here, you are changing only the position of the SPDX tag, and it does not require approval in the same way that adding an SPDX tag where one was missing would not.

[ziaee]

In D49408#1126805, @shurd wrote:

It may be worth noting that the only example of SPDX in style(9) that I see has SPDX before the copyright.

It was a great honor to have the privilege of fixing it in recent CURRENT!