On Thu, 06 Oct 2022, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Em Wed, 05 Oct 2022 19:58:39 +0300 > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> On Tue, 04 Oct 2022, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Make a few changes to cause functions documented by kerneldoc to stand out >> > better in the rendered documentation. Specifically, change kernel-doc to >> > put the description section into a ".. container::" section, then add a bit >> > of CSS to indent that section relative to the function prototype (or struct >> > or enum definition). Tweak a few other CSS parameters while in the >> > neighborhood to improve the formatting. >> >> Way back I tried to keep the formatting changes minimal to avoid opening >> that particular can of worms along with the rest of the Sphinx >> transition. >> >> But I do wonder if people find value in repeating e.g. the struct >> definitions in the documentation. I'd argue the rendered documentation >> is more for an overview, and if you need to know the exact details, >> you'll be in the editor typing code and you can look up the actual >> definition in source. Having the definition feels maybe a bit excessive. > > I have split thoughts regards to it. The advantage of having the > struct definition there is to allow checking the type of each argument, > which is useful. It also provide a way to double-check if the parser > is dealing well with the argument, but, on the counter-side, the > type printed by kernel-doc may not be identical to what's inside the > Kernel, on some special cases, as the parse logic for arguments is > complex. The same applies on functions and macros. Two alternatives to removing it come to mind: - Generating links to git.kernel.org at right version, file and line. - A collapsible (and collapsed by default) code box. I think this needs html/css hacking, not possible in Sphinx out of the box. >> >> We also don't use Sphinx C Domain's ".. c:member::" for struct/union >> members, > > I'm wondering how much extra build time this would impact ;-) > If the impact is not huge, I'm in favor of using it. > >> or ".. c:enumerator::" for enumeration contants. > > This one can be more problematic, as it could break existing > cross-references. Certainly. > >> They provide arguably nicer rendering out of the box than our stuff. > > Agreed. > >> The Sphinx way to do parameter lists would be field lists i.e. ":param >> foo: description". Ditto for return values ":return: description". (Not >> saying we should convert the comments, but kernel-doc the script could >> emit those.) >> >> Perhaps we'd be better off going towards Sphinx standard usage than >> tweaking our own thing? >> >> I'm afraid I don't have the time to work on this. Talk is cheap and all >> that. My two cents. >> >> Anyway, here are some examples how this might look like: [1]. >> >> >> BR, >> Jani. >> >> >> >> [1] https://hawkmoth.readthedocs.io/en/latest/examples.html > > It reminds that we're currently lacking a way to describe non-macro > #defines. In special for bit-based defines, it would be nice to have > a good way to document them, without needing to convert defines into > enums. ITYM simple or non-function-like macros. Sphinx supports ".. macro::" for that nowadays, but don't know since what version. That's what I use in Hawkmoth, and ".. function::" for macros with args. BR, Jani. > > Regards, > Mauro -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
