On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 01:10:51PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:16 AM Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/01/2024 00:45, Kent Gibson wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 10:00:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > >> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:00 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> May we actually state in the documentation that sysfs is subject to > > >> remove at some point? > > > > > > So formally define what "deprecated" means? > > > Is that covered in the higher level documentation somewhere? > > > If so I'm more than happy to provide a reference. > > > > We have a few files that may be relevant here, that I'm aware of: > > > > 1) https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/sysfs-rules.html > > > > documents some general assumptions that userspace can make about the > > stability of sysfs and its files > > > > 2) https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/abi.html > > > > This is the public-facing, somewhat machine-readable repository of what > > is supposed to be the kernel's ABI/API, including "obsolete" and > > "removed" interfaces. > > > > 3) Documentation/ABI/README > > > > describes the process of deprecating an interface > > Yes and GPIO currently is under obsolete section with also this: > > "This ABI is deprecated and will be removed after 2020. It is replaced > with the GPIO character device." > > https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/abi-obsolete.html#symbols-under-sys-class > > So, proposed cleanup series should probably rely on this documentation > among other existing descriptions of sysfs GPIO. > The sysfs doc already references the doc (sysfs-gpio) that generates the HTML that link points to, so not sure what to change. I can't include a direct reference to the HTML, AFAICT, as that HTML is generated using kernel-abi makefile magic so the usual doc path cross-references don't work - you just get the path as plain text. If there is some way to provide a cross-reference that generates to that link then I'll change it, but I don't know how. >>> + - - ``EFAULT`` > Wondering if these constants can be referenced via % and if it makes sense. That would be great and I do want to do that, particularly for the uAPI v1 docs that use a lot of consts rather than enums, but, AFAICT, you can't create cross-references for consts, you can only add formatting[1]. And the % formatting only works in kernel-doc, in rst you have to add it explicitly yourself, hence the ``EFAULT`` . Cheers, Kent. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#highlights-and-cross-references
