Re: [Intel-gfx] [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] drm/i915/uapi: convert i915_query and friend to kernel doc

Daniel Vetter writes: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 12:25 AM Ian Romanick wrote: >> Since we just had a big discussion about this on mesa-dev w.r.t. Mesa >> code and documentation... does the kernel have a policy about which >> flavor (pun intended) of English should be used? > > I'm not finding it

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'identifiers'

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 08:31:22 +0800 Changbin Du wrote: > Here python is different from C. Both empty string and None are False in > python. > Note such condition is common in python. Treating both as a False value is reasonably common. Treating them elsewhere in the same code block as separate

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'identifiers'

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 21:17:17 +0800 Changbin Du wrote: > The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for > structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to > 'identifiers', which specific the functions/types to be included in > documentation. We keep the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kernel-doc: rename the kernel-doc directive 'functions' to 'specific'

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0800 Changbin Du wrote: > The 'functions' directive is not only for functions, but also works for > structs/unions. So the name is misleading. This patch renames it to > 'specific', so now we have export/internal/specific directives to limit > the functions/types to

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] docs: fix some broken references due to txt->rst renames

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:33:58 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > here are three left-overs from the recent file renames, > probably due to some other conflicting patch. > > Fix them. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab > --- > > This patch is against today's next-20190617 branch. Not

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5] docs: power: convert docs to ReST and rename to *.rst

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:10:36 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Convert the PM documents to ReST, in order to allow them to > build with Sphinx. > > The conversion is actually: > - add blank lines and identation in order to identify paragraphs; > - fix tables markups; > - add some lists

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/6] Add support for in-line nested struct comments

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:48:14 -0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > his series fix two bugs at kernel-doc.rst examples and add support > for in-line nested struct comments. > > It also converts one documentation at intel_dpio_phy to use it, > in order to give a practical

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] dma-buf: Extract dma-buf.rst

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 19:53:05 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Just prep work to polish and consolidate all the dma-buf related > documenation. > > Unfortunately I didn't discover a way to both integrate this new file > into the overall toc while keeping it at the current

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:35:42 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Here's a thought, though: how about if we slip in a little version of > > dma-buf.rst now with a "coming soon, don't miss it!!" message? Then the > > rest of the set could go through your tree without touching >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:35:49 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > > It seems like just the sort of thing we want to be doing to pull the docs > > together in a more rational way. > > Ok if we pull this in through gfx trees? Will miss 4.10 though, that's > already finished and

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 19:53:04 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Not yet everything in this area, I still want to sprinkle nice docs around all > the fence code. Especially some text to explain implicit vs. explicit fencing > and how it's all supposed to work. > > But just

Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc tree

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:52:15 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in: > > Documentation/gpu/index.rst > > between commit: > > b754b35b089d ("vgaarbiter: rst-ifiy and polish kerneldoc") > > from the drm-misc

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] doc/sphinx: Enable keep_warnings

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:42:54 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Unfortunately warnings generated after parsing in sphinx can end up > with entirely bogus files and line numbers as sources. Strangely for > outright errors this is not a problem. Trying to convert warnings to >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/5] drm: Enable markdown^Wasciidoc for gpu.tmpl

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:03:26 +0200 Jani Nikula wrote: > What if we added support for some markup language as an alternative to > DocBook for the high level documentation? What if we taught kernel-doc > to output said markup natively, and included those generated

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/5] drm: Enable markdown^Wasciidoc for gpu.tmpl

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:13:45 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > I just figured there's no way this could get it, and I'd > much rather improve the docs themselves than trying to convince core > kernel folks that this might be useful. So I'm not quite sure why you figured that; I

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/5] drm: Enable markdown^Wasciidoc for gpu.tmpl

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:07:59 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Unfortunately the entire improved docbook project died at KS in a > massive bikeshed. So we need to carry this around in drm private trees > forever :( I don't think that's an entirely helpful way to look at

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/4] scripts/kernel-doc: Replacing highlights hash by an array

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:40:46 -0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > The above causes some versions of perl to fail, as keys expect a > hash argument: > > Execution of .//scripts/kernel-doc aborted due to compilation errors. > Type of arg 1 to keys must be hash (not

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/4] scripts/kernel-doc: Replacing highlights hash by an array

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:29:49 -0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > The enclosed patch should do the trick. I tested it with perl 5.10 and > perl 5.22 it worked fine with both versions. Indeed it seems to work - thanks! Applied to the docs tree, I'll get it upstream

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] Docs: drm: Move KMS properties table out to source files

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:36:59 +0100 Graham Whaley wrote: > I've still not thought of a way of tweaking the kernel-doc and pandoc > processing to work around this either, as they are done as different > passes/phases that neither has knowledge about the others >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/6] scripts/kernel-doc: Kernel-doc improvements

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:36:07 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Personally I don't care which kind of text markup we pick and wich > converter, as long as the project looks reasonable far away from > immeninent death (way too many one-person projects on github in this > area). > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/6] scripts/kernel-doc: Replacing highlights hash by an array

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:01:59 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula wrote: > The "highlight" code is very sensible to the order of the hash keys, > but the order of the keys cannot be predicted. It generates > faulty DocBook entries like: > - @device_for_each_child

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/6] scripts/kernel-doc: Kernel-doc improvements

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:01:58 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula wrote: > The following series contains: > * kernel-doc: markdown support and improvements. OK, I've spent a while looking this stuff over. I like the general idea, but I do have a couple of concerns.

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc: Processing -nofunc for functions only

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:44:14 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula wrote: > Docproc process EXPORT_SYMBOL(f1) macro and uses -nofunc f1 to > avoid duplicated documentation in the next call. > It works for most of the cases, but there are some specific situations > where

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc: Improve Markdown results

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:53:34 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula wrote: > In the last few days I sent three features: > Markdown support (patch series 1) > Cross-reference hyperlink support (patch series 1) > in-struct-body documentation (series 2) > > I assume you

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc: Improve Markdown results

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:57:33 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula wrote: > Did you find time to check this patch? As you mentioned that you applied > the Markdown support for the linux-next tree, this patch might be needed > (maybe "wanted" is a better word). Not quite

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] Add support for Hyperlinks and Markup on kernel-doc

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:09:35 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula danilo.ce...@collabora.co.uk wrote: Did you find time to take a look on this? No. Just when I thought things couldn't get crazier, my laptop died. https://plus.google.com/+JonathanCorbet/posts/FBHp48dPb95 What spare

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] scripts/kernel-doc Allow struct arguments documentation in struct body

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:04:08 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula danilo.ce...@collabora.co.uk wrote: Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well for struct with a huge list of elements. Keeping the arguments

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc Allow struct arguments documentation in struct body

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:23:19 +0200 Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch wrote: I'm wondering if we need a kernel summit session on commenting conventions, markdown-in-kerneldoc, etc? Maybe I'll stick a proposal out there. Might be useful, but I'm not sure how many people really would actively

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/kernel-doc Allow struct arguments documentation in struct body

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:06:45 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula danilo.ce...@collabora.co.uk wrote: Describing arguments at top of a struct definition works fine for small/medium size structs, but it definitely doesn't work well for struct with a huge list of elements. Keeping the arguments

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/4] Add support for Hyperlinks and Markup on kernel-doc

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:16:23 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula danilo.ce...@collabora.co.uk wrote: This series add supports for hyperlink cross-references on Docbooks and an optional markup syntax for in-source Documentation. I like the idea; just be warned that it's likely to be a week or two

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] scripts/kernel-doc: Adding cross-reference links to html documentation.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:08:57 -0300 Danilo Cesar Lemes de Paula danilo.ce...@collabora.co.uk wrote: To ease the navigation in the documentation we should use links inside those tags so readers can easily jump between methods directly. This was discussed in 2014[1] and is implemented by