On Wed, 09 Dec 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> 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. > > v2: Spelling fixes from Pierre, Laurent and Jani. Nah, you ignored my comment about "these documentations use American English". :/ BR, Jani. > > Cc: Pierre Moreau <pierre.morrow@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1449564561-3896-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx > --- > Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl > index 749b8e2f2113..ce4d6f017242 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 > + for structure members, &structure to refernce structures and > + function() for functions. These all get automatically hyperlinked if > + kerneldoc for the referencec objects exists When referencing entries in > + function vtables please use -<vfunc(). Note that with kerneldoc does > + not support referncing struct members directly, so please add a reference > + 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. > + </para> > + </sect1> > </chapter> > > <!-- Internals --> -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
