On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yeah just saying a man page should be required as part of any new > ioctl. Yeah I agree and long-term we'll get there. Otherwise I wouldn't have added it. But imo for a documentation requirement for merging features we need a few things ready first: a) Have a somewhat useful skeleton. For drm core Laurent made this happen and then the details (mostly api docs) have been slowly filled out over the past 1-2 years). Now we're ready to crawl into drivers. b) Have someone with good experience with the tooling. I've written and reviewed lots of kerneldoc api patches for drm, so I think we're covered. Those are also the reasons why I'm writing piles of igt docs just now - we need a bit a baseline so that people have lots of examples to follow and I'm learning the tooling to figure out what works and what doesn't. For ioctls we have a bit of manpages, but only for the libdrm functions and not the ioctls themselves, and only for drm core stuff. Hence why I think ioctl docs aren't for the masses yet. But if someone digs in and lays that groundwork and is willing to review patches a bit at the beginnning I'll happily support that by rejecting new ioctls without such docs. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
