On 05/12/2014 01:58 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:24:57PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: >>>> >>>> If we decide to go for property documentation inside the source code then I >>>> believe we'll have to create our own format, as creating a properties table >>>> from kerneldoc information extracted from comments is probably not possible. >>> >>> Can comeone pick up the ball here and figure out what needs to be done? >>> >>> The reason why I want a central place for the documentation is to force >>> people to collaborate outside their own sandbox when adding properties. >>> Whether that's docbook or some text file I don't care so much at this >>> point. The fact that it's a central place should mandate that the >>> patches changing it will go through dri-devel and so everyone should se >>> them, and when adding new properties it would make the patch author more >>> likely to look around a bit before adding another slighty incompatible >>> version of the same property. If someone has a better suggestion how to >>> encforce this I'm all ears. >>> >>> Of course this idea can still fail if our esteemed maintainer merges >>> stuff without checking for violations of this policy. Dave, any thoughts >>> on the subject? >> >> Yeah I'm happy to block merging stuff, if we can spot new properties >> when stuff is posted on dri-devel, so much the better, >> >> most drivers still send everything via dri-devel anyways, its only >> really Intel I have to worry about so far, > > I'll enforce that all prop stuff gets cc: dri-devel and that it has > updates for the prop docs. > >> But we should definitely add it to the new driver review checklist as well. >> >> I'm also on the side of this patch is ugly and makes my eyes burn, >> please please get a plan to use something else ASAP, I'm willing to >> merge this but I'm tempted to give it a lifetime of a kernel or two >> before I burn it. > > Ok, I'll try to move "make kerneldoc suck less" up the task list and maybe > find someone to do it for me internally ;-) > -Daniel > I certainly have no objections to making kerneldoc suck less. There was already an attempt to use asciidoc (like git uses) for kernel-doc (a few years ago, by Sam Ravnborg). I support(ed) that effort. OTOH, I would only want to add another way to do kernel-doc if it can be a full replacement for all of our docbook usage, i.e., it should provide a way that we can eliminate docbook and stop using it completely. thanks, -- ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
