Hi Randy, On Thursday 31 July 2014 15:16:21 Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/12/14 11:04, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > 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 ;-) > >>> > >>> 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. > > Hi Daniel and others, > > I don't know what your plans are for drm docs (tables, etc.), but I think > that I misspoke above. My primary/major concern is that there be some > useful documentation. What form or format it is in is secondary. I agree with you, there's no reason to block your patch just because we might get a better documentation tool at a still unknown point in the future. Daniel, are you fine with merging the documentation in DocBook format for now ? Randy, could you please check whether your patch still applies and rebase and resubmit it if it doesn't ? > It's not a good thing that media DocBook is so different from all of the > others, but it's OK. > > It's not a good thing that drivers/lguest/ uses its own tools to extract > comments from source files to create documentation, but it's OK -- at least > it generates some (hopefully useful) documentation. > > I also note that a new autofs doc file (not yet merged) uses markdown. > > Please feel free to use kernel-doc or markdown or asciidoc or plain text. :) > or even your own tools, even though that is less preferred. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
