On 05/12/2014 08:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:23:45AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/12/2014 01:58 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:24:57PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> If we decide to go for property documentation inside the source code then I >>>>>> believe we'll have to create our own format, as creating a properties table >>>>>> from kerneldoc information extracted from comments is probably not possible. >>>>> >>>>> Can comeone pick up the ball here and figure out what needs to be done? >>>>> >>>>> The reason why I want a central place for the documentation is to force >>>>> people to collaborate outside their own sandbox when adding properties. >>>>> Whether that's docbook or some text file I don't care so much at this >>>>> point. The fact that it's a central place should mandate that the >>>>> patches changing it will go through dri-devel and so everyone should se >>>>> them, and when adding new properties it would make the patch author more >>>>> likely to look around a bit before adding another slighty incompatible >>>>> version of the same property. If someone has a better suggestion how to >>>>> encforce this I'm all ears. >>>>> >>>>> Of course this idea can still fail if our esteemed maintainer merges >>>>> stuff without checking for violations of this policy. Dave, any thoughts >>>>> on the subject? >>>> >>>> Yeah I'm happy to block merging stuff, if we can spot new properties >>>> when stuff is posted on dri-devel, so much the better, >>>> >>>> most drivers still send everything via dri-devel anyways, its only >>>> really Intel I have to worry about so far, >>> >>> I'll enforce that all prop stuff gets cc: dri-devel and that it has >>> updates for the prop docs. >>> >>>> But we should definitely add it to the new driver review checklist as well. >>>> >>>> I'm also on the side of this patch is ugly and makes my eyes burn, >>>> please please get a plan to use something else ASAP, I'm willing to >>>> merge this but I'm tempted to give it a lifetime of a kernel or two >>>> before I burn it. >>> >>> Ok, I'll try to move "make kerneldoc suck less" up the task list and maybe >>> find someone to do it for me internally ;-) >>> -Daniel >>> >> >> I certainly have no objections to making kerneldoc suck less. >> There was already an attempt to use asciidoc (like git uses) for kernel-doc >> (a few years ago, by Sam Ravnborg). I support(ed) that effort. > > Hm, do you have pointers to those? My google-fu seems lacking ... I googled for /kernel doc asciidoc ravnborg/ and found several hits for them. > Ok, let's move this to the top and start discussions. The past few months > I've written piles of kerneldoc comments for the DRM DocBook (all pulled > in as kerneldoc, docbook .tmpl has just the chapter structure). DOC: > sections are really useful to pull all the actual documentation out of the > docbook xml into kerneldoc. > > But I've also done piles of docs for intel-gpu-tools, which is using > gtkdoc. And there are some clear deficiencies: > > - No markdown for inline coments. Lack of lists and tables is hurting > especially badly. If we add this (and I don't care one iota whether it's Yes, I've tried to add lists to kernel-doc notation but have failed so far. > markdown or asciidoc or something else as long as it's readable plain > text in comments) we should be able to move all the existing docbook xml > paragraphs/lists/tables into kerneldoc comments. > > - Automatic cross-referencing of functions. If you place e.g. function() > or #struct anywhere in a documentation comment gtk-doc automatically > inserts a hyperlink to the relevant documentation page across the entire > project. Really powerful and makes overview sections much more useful > entry points for beginners since they can easily jump back&forth > betweeen the high-level overview and low-level per-function > documentation. > That's a nice-to-have IMO, but a really nice one. > - In a really perfect world it would help if kerneldoc could collect > structure member kerneldoc from per-member comments. Especially for > large structures with lots of comments this would bring the kerneldoc > and struct member much closer together. > > So that's my wishlist. > >> OTOH, I would only want to add another way to do kernel-doc if it can be a >> full replacement for all of our docbook usage, i.e., it should provide a >> way that we can eliminate docbook and stop using it completely. > > Hm, I don't mind docbook at all, as long as all the real content is > embedded into source files as kerneldoc and the docbook template just > pulls in all the right bits and pieces. Even gtkdoc allos you to do that > and pull in the different libararies (== header files with declarations > for C) in the order you want. So imo the docbook toolchain is good enough > for my needs. > > Or what do you mean by getting rid of all docbook usage? I meant no docbook style sheets, no 'xmlto', the whole ball of wax. But primarily I don't want to see drivers/video/ using one set of doc tools and drivers/media/ using another set and drivers/xyz/ using its own set of tools, etc. etc. etc. -- ~Randy _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
