Hi Jani, On 11/21/24 11:28 AM, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 11/21/24 3:19 AM, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> If I print a typedef in html (make htmldocs) from a .rst file, >>>>> I see: >>>>> >>>>> type dma_cookie_t >>>>> an opaque DMA cookie >>>>> >>>>> Description >>>>> >>>>> if dma_cookie_t is >0 it’s a DMA request cookie, <0 it’s an error code >>>>> >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> If I print the same typedef in man format, it says 'typedef' instead of >>>>> 'type', which is what I expect to see. >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, it's unambigous to me which one you expect. >>> >>> *ambiguous, obvs! >> >> Sorry about that. I would like to see 'typedef' instead of 'type'. > > Right, so looking into it, Sphinx actually has two forms for documenting > types, described at [1]: > > .. c:type:: foo_t > > .. c:type:: int foo_t > > The former is simple, and becomes a generic "type" in rendered > documentation, while the latter can contain a "typedef-like > declaration", and becomes "typedef" in rendered documentation. > > So, if you can make kernel-doc emit a proper typedef for the c:type What a big "if"! Not your problem though. What this exercise has shown me is that the scripts/kernel-doc processing of 'typedef' is sorely lacking. I.e., "typedef [many options]" is too complex for it. ;) My test case has 3 typedefs in a row and scripts/kernel-doc sees only the first one as a typedef, skips the second one, and parses the third one as a macro. (!) > directive, the output will contain typedef, but otherwise remains just > type. Whether having the actual typedef declaration in the output is > something you also want, is a different matter. Thanks for your assistance. -- ~Randy
