[PATCH 0/1] Start conversion of PowerPC docs
Hi Michael,
As discussed at LCA here is the start to the docs conversion for PowerPC
to RST.
This applies cleanly on top of the mainline (5.20-rc5) and Jon's tree
(docs-next branch).
I'm guessing it should go in through the PowerPC tree because I doubt
you want to review this Jon, it's one big single patch (all blame for
that falls on mpe ;)
This patch converts all the files that do _not_ contain ASCII art - I'm
not sure how to go about doing those, suggestions please.
>From the commit message:
- Add SPDX license identifier to each new RST file.
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
- User correct heading adornments.
- Make all lines < 72 characters in width.
- Use correct indentation for code blocks, add syntax highlighting
- Sparingly use double ticks if it makes the files easier to parse
both in text and on the web.
- Fix any super obvious typos (lean towards not making changes so that
we don't introduce errors).
Edited as text files (obviously) and formatted as HTML to verify
rendering, no other formats verified.
thanks,
Tobin.
Tobin C. Harding (1):
docs: powerpc: Convert docs to RST format.
Documentation/index.rst | 1 +
Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.rst | 60
Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.txt | 58 ---
Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.rst | 140
Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.txt | 141
Documentation/powerpc/conf.py | 10 +
Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.rst| 62
Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.txt| 56 ---
.../powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.rst| 319 +
.../powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.txt| 334 --
Documentation/powerpc/index.rst | 21 ++
Documentation/powerpc/isa-versions.rst| 234
Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.rst | 52 +++
Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.txt | 39 --
Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.rst | 148
Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.txt | 137 ---
Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.rst | 177 ++
Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.txt | 151
.../{syscall64-abi.txt => syscall64-abi.rst} | 80 +++--
.../powerpc/transactional_memory.rst | 259 ++
.../powerpc/transactional_memory.txt | 244 -
21 files changed, 1460 insertions(+), 1263 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.rst
delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.txt
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.rst
delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.txt
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/conf.py
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.rst
delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.txt
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.rst
delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.txt
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/index.rst
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.rst
delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.txt
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.rst
delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.txt
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.rst
delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.txt
rename Documentation/powerpc/{syscall64-abi.txt => syscall64-abi.rst} (58%)
create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.rst
delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.txt
--
2.20.1
Re: [PATCH 0/1] Start conversion of PowerPC docs
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:03:15 +1100 "Tobin C. Harding" wrote: > As discussed at LCA here is the start to the docs conversion for PowerPC > to RST. > > This applies cleanly on top of the mainline (5.20-rc5) and Jon's tree > (docs-next branch). > > I'm guessing it should go in through the PowerPC tree because I doubt > you want to review this Jon, it's one big single patch (all blame for > that falls on mpe ;) Well, I went and took a look anyway, being a glutton for punishment. So naturally I do have some comments... - I don't think this should be a top-level directory full of docs; the top level is already rather overpopulated. At worst, we should create an arch/ directory for architecture-specific docs. I kind of think that this should be thought through a bit more, though, with an eye toward who the audience is. Some of it is clearly developer documentation, and some of it is aimed at admins; ptrace.rst is user-space API stuff. Nobody ever welcomes me saying this, but we should really split things into the appropriate manuals according to audience. - It would be good to know how much of this stuff is still relevant. bootwrapper.txt hasn't been modified since it was added in 2008. cpu_features.txt predates the git era, as does mpc52xx.txt; hvcs.txt is nearly as old. And so on. Can we perhaps stop dragging some of those docs around? - The use of flat-table in isa-versions.rst totally wrecks the readability of those tables in the plain-text version. Said tables are pretty close to being RST in their original form; it would be far better to just fix anything needing fixing but to keep that form. - I'm glad you're adding SPDX lines, but do you know that the license is correct in each case? It's best to be careful with such things. Thanks, jon
Re: [PATCH 0/1] Start conversion of PowerPC docs
Jonathan Corbet writes: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:03:15 +1100 > "Tobin C. Harding" wrote: > >> As discussed at LCA here is the start to the docs conversion for PowerPC >> to RST. >> >> This applies cleanly on top of the mainline (5.20-rc5) and Jon's tree >> (docs-next branch). >> >> I'm guessing it should go in through the PowerPC tree because I doubt >> you want to review this Jon, it's one big single patch (all blame for >> that falls on mpe ;) > > Well, I went and took a look anyway, being a glutton for punishment. So > naturally I do have some comments... > > - I don't think this should be a top-level directory full of docs; the top > level is already rather overpopulated. At worst, we should create an > arch/ directory for architecture-specific docs. We currently have arch specific directories for arm, arm64, ia64, m68k, nios2, openrisc, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh, sparc, x86, xtensa. Do you mean they should all be moved to Documentation/arch ? > I kind of think that > this should be thought through a bit more, though, with an eye toward > who the audience is. Some of it is clearly developer documentation, and > some of it is aimed at admins; ptrace.rst is user-space API stuff. > Nobody ever welcomes me saying this, but we should really split things > into the appropriate manuals according to audience. I don't think any of it's aimed at admins, but I haven't read every word. I see it as aimed at kernel devs or people writing directly to the kernel API, eg. gdb developers reading ptrace.rst. If Documentation/ wants to be more user focused and nicely curated perhaps we need arch/foo/docs/ for these developer centric docs? > - It would be good to know how much of this stuff is still relevant. > bootwrapper.txt hasn't been modified since it was added in 2008. It hasn't been modified but AFAIK it's still pretty much accurate and definitely something we want to have documented. > cpu_features.txt predates the git era But so does the code it's documenting. > as does mpc52xx.txt; hvcs.txt is nearly as old. And so on. Can we > perhaps stop dragging some of those docs around? We support some hardware that is ~25 years old, so we have some old documentation too, and I'd rather we didn't drop things just because they're old. > - The use of flat-table in isa-versions.rst totally wrecks the readability > of those tables in the plain-text version. Said tables are pretty close > to being RST in their original form; it would be far better to just fix > anything needing fixing but to keep that form. Yes agree, I'd like the docs to be as readable as possible as plain text. > - I'm glad you're adding SPDX lines, but do you know that the license is > correct in each case? It's best to be careful with such things. None of the files have licenses so I think we just fall back to COPYING don't we? In which case GPL-2.0 is correct for all files. cheers
Re: [PATCH 0/1] Start conversion of PowerPC docs
On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 14:40:28 +1100 Michael Ellerman wrote: > > - I don't think this should be a top-level directory full of docs; the top > > level is already rather overpopulated. At worst, we should create an > > arch/ directory for architecture-specific docs. > > We currently have arch specific directories for arm, arm64, ia64, m68k, > nios2, openrisc, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh, sparc, x86, xtensa. > > Do you mean they should all be moved to Documentation/arch ? Over time I'm really trying to bring some organization to Documentation/, and to have that reflected in an RST tree that looks like somebody actually thought about it. So yes, I would eventually like to see something like Documentation/arch, just like we have arch/ in the top-level directory. > > I kind of think that > > this should be thought through a bit more, though, with an eye toward > > who the audience is. Some of it is clearly developer documentation, and > > some of it is aimed at admins; ptrace.rst is user-space API stuff. > > Nobody ever welcomes me saying this, but we should really split things > > into the appropriate manuals according to audience. > > I don't think any of it's aimed at admins, but I haven't read every > word. I see it as aimed at kernel devs or people writing directly to the > kernel API, eg. gdb developers reading ptrace.rst. > > If Documentation/ wants to be more user focused and nicely curated > perhaps we need arch/foo/docs/ for these developer centric docs? Stuff for GDB developers is best placed in the userspace-api docbook; we're trying to concentrate that there. Stuff for kernel developers is a bit more diffuse still; arch/foo/docs may end up being the best place for it in the end, yes. > > - It would be good to know how much of this stuff is still relevant. > > bootwrapper.txt hasn't been modified since it was added in 2008. > > It hasn't been modified but AFAIK it's still pretty much accurate and > definitely something we want to have documented. That's fine for this (and all the others); I'm just hoping that somebody has thought about it. We're carrying a *lot* of dusty old stuff that, IMO, can only serve to confuse those who read it. If these files don't fall into that category, that's great. > We support some hardware that is ~25 years old, so we have some old > documentation too, and I'd rather we didn't drop things just because > they're old. I agree, as long as they remain correct and relevant. > > - I'm glad you're adding SPDX lines, but do you know that the license is > > correct in each case? It's best to be careful with such things. > > None of the files have licenses so I think we just fall back to COPYING > don't we? In which case GPL-2.0 is correct for all files. That's often the best choice, though some people have resorted to some rather more in-depth archeology to try to figure out what the original author actually intended. Again, I'm just asking so that we're sure it's the best choice. Thanks, jon
