Hello Daniel, Just some typo comments below. On 09:49 AM - Dec 08 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Every time I type or review docs this seems a bit different. Try to > document the common style so we can try to unify at least new docs. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > index 86e5b12a49ba..5698c93dae8b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > +++ b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > @@ -124,6 +124,43 @@ > <para> > [Insert diagram of typical DRM stack here] > </para> > + <sect1> > + <title>Style Guidelines</title> > + <para> > + For consistency these documentations use American English. Abbreviations > + are written as all-uppercase, for example: DRM, KMS, IOCTL, CRTC, and so > + on. To aid in reading documentations make full use of the markup > + characters kerneldoc provides: @parameter for function paramters, @member paramters -> parameters > + for structure members, &structure to refernce structures and refernce -> reference > + function() for functions. These all get automatically hyperlinked if > + kerneldoc for the referencec objects exists When referencing entries in referencec -> referenced, missing '.' after exists > + function vtables please use -<vfunc(). Note that with kerneldoc does Isn't "with" too much here? "Note that kerneldoc does not […]"? > + not support referncing struct members directly, so please add a reference referncing -> referencing > + to the vtable struct somewhere in the same paragraph or at least section. > + </para> > + <para> > + Except in special situations (to separate locked from unlocked variants) > + locking requirements for functions aren't documented in the kerneldoc. > + Instead locking should be check at runtime using e.g. > + <code>WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(...));</code>. Since it's much easier to > + ignore documentation than runtime noise this provides more value. And on > + top of that runtime checks do need to be updated when the locking rules > + change, increasing the changes that they're correct. Within the > + documentation the locking rules should be explained in the relevant > + structures: Either in the comment for the lock explaining what it > + protects, or data fields need a note about which lock protects them, or > + both. > + </para> > + <para> > + Functions which have a non-<code>void</code> return value should have a > + section called "Returns" explaining the expected return values in > + different cases an their meanings. Currently there's no consensus whether > + that section name should be all upper-case or not, and whether it should > + end in a colon or not. Go with the file-local style. Other common section > + names are "Notes" with information for dangerous or tricky corner cases, > + and "FIXME" where the interface could be cleaned up. Why not define (and use) a single style for naming all sections? Old documentation might not use it, but it should be doable to upgrade those old documents. Pierre > + </para> > + </sect1> > </chapter> > > <!-- Internals --> > -- > 2.5.1 > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
