On Thu, 29 Sep 2022, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 02:05:06PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/serial.h b/include/uapi/linux/serial.h
> > index cea06924b295..6e347eb10b1f 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/serial.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/serial.h
> > @@ -107,37 +107,57 @@ struct serial_icounter_struct {
> > int reserved[9];
> > };
> >
> > -/*
> > +/**
> > + * struct serial_rs485 - serial interface for controlling RS485 settings.
> > + * @flags: RS485 feature flags.
> > + * @delay_rts_before_send: Delay before send (milliseconds).
> > + * @delay_rts_after_send: Delay after send (milliseconds).
> > + * @addr_recv: Receive filter for RS485 addressing mode
> > + * (used only when %SER_RS485_ADDR_RECV is set).
> > + * @addr_dest: Destination address for RS485 addressing mode
> > + * (used only when %SER_RS485_ADDR_DEST is set).
> > + * @padding0: Padding (set to zero).
> > + * @padding1: Padding (set to zero).
> > + * @padding: Deprecated, use @padding0 and @padding1 instead.
> > + * Do not use with @addr_recv and @addr_dest (due to
> > + * overlap).
> > + *
>
> I don't see definition of fields after @delay_rts_after_send in the
> htmldocs output.
So it seems, this one I had missed. I guess the reason is that those
members are inside anonymous unions. But the formatting follows what
is documented here AFAICT:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#nested-structs-unions
Kerneldoc doesn't seem to live up to what is documented about it. It's a
bit ironic that documentation system fails to document even itself to
sufficient level, and what's worse, seems to be full of faulty examples.
Any suggestions how to make it work?
> > * Serial interface for controlling RS485 settings on chips with suitable
> > * support. Set with TIOCSRS485 and get with TIOCGRS485 if supported by your
> > * platform. The set function returns the new state, with any unsupported bits
> > * reverted appropriately.
> > + *
> > + * serial_rs485::flags bits are:
> > + *
> > + * * %SER_RS485_ENABLED - RS485 enabled.
> > + * * %SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND - Logical level for RTS pin when sending.
> > + * * %SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND - Logical level for RTS pin after sent.
> > + * * %SER_RS485_RX_DURING_TX - Full-duplex RS485 line.
> > + * * %SER_RS485_TERMINATE_BUS - Enable bus termination (if supported).
> > + * * %SER_RS485_ADDRB - Enable RS485 addressing mode.
> > + * * %SER_RS485_ADDR_RECV - Receive address filter (enables @addr_recv).
> > + * Requires %SER_RS485_ADDRB.
> > + * * %SER_RS485_ADDR_DEST - Destination address (enables @addr_dest).
> > + * Requires %SER_RS485_ADDRB.
>
> The last two items are rendered as bold text instead (maybe due to missing
> fields rendering above?)
It just goes into some random formatting mode here. Even if I remove those
field markers (@) it doesn't do formatting differently so your guesss is
wrong.
I found now a way to make it work though. It works when I put the whole
description on a single line but it comes at the cost of removing the
alignment of those "-". The other way to make it work would be like this:
* * %SER_RS485_ADDR_RECV - Receive address filter (enables @addr_recv).
Requires %SER_RS485_ADDRB.
...And that's no good. I guess the single-line approach is an acceptable
compromise for this case.
--
i.
