On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:40:51PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > Yeah, that’s clearly an alternative. If we go down this route, then perhaps > the docs should be swept for other instances (if any) and handle them all to > keep things consistent? (and yes, I volunteer if we want to opt for that.)
FWIW, we still need a proper description of these fields in the docs, so listing them in spi.sgml has the advantage to improve the grepping coverage of which area needs to be patched. This structure not updated actually shows that this argument can be wrong as well ;p -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
