[RFC] drm: Start documenting userspace ABI

[Thierry Reding]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 04:05:08PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 03:27:27PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 03:19:33PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> > From: Thierry Reding <treding at nvidia.com>
> >> >
> >> > After seeing how the DRM_IOCTL_MODE_CREATE_DUMB was implemented with
> >> > different semantics on different drivers it seems like a good idea to
> >> > start to more rigorously document userspace ABI to avoid these things
> >> > in the future.
> >> >
> >> > This is a first draft of what such documentation could look like. Not
> >> > all IOCTLs are documented and some explanation about the other system
> >> > calls (mmap(), poll(), read(), ...) would be good too. But I wanted to
> >> > send this out for early review to see if the direction is reasonable.
> >> > If so my plan is to continue to chip away at this as I find time.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding at nvidia.com>
> >>
> >> Imo for ioctls the right thing to do is having proper manpages, not
> >> kerneldoc or DocBook sections. manpages really lend themselves well to
> >> specify all the different facets of a single interface.
> >
> > I don't think I've ever seen manpages document IOCTLs at this level of
> > detail. The intention of this is to add documentation about the IOCTLs
> > at the kernel/userspace transition. Keeping this in the kernel has the
> > advantage that it's a whole lot easier to keep updated, much like what
> > we do with the other kerneldoc.
> >
> > That doesn't mean we shouldn't have manpages, but I think both are for
> > the most part orthogonal, even though they may describe various facets
> > of the same interfaces.
> 
> tty_ioctl(4)
> console_ioctl(4)
> 
> I think a similar man-page ala drm_ioctl(4) makes a lot of sense.
> 
> >> Also, we already have some skeleton of that in libdrm, so I think
> >> extending that would be best.
> >
> > One other reason why I don't think libdrm is the best fit for this is
> > that libdrm is just one userspace implementation abstracting away the
> > interfaces that this describes. Not everyone will use libdrm. So in my
> > opinion its great if libdrm documents the API that it exposes, but I
> > don't think it should document the kernel interfaces that it uses. The
> > kernel exposes them, so it should provide the documentation for it as
> > well.
> 
> I don't mind documenting this in the kernel-doc. But if we start
> something like drm_ioctl(4) (I pushed some more generic man-pages to
> libdrm a few years ago), we have this documented in 2 places, which is
> always annoying for updates.

I wonder if it would somehow be possible to generate manpages from the
DocBook to avoid this duplication. One of the things that
DRM_IOCTL_MODE_CREATE_DUMB showed is that both drivers and userspace can
interpret things wrongly, and I fear that if all we have is a manpage to
document the IOCTLs, people writing the drivers may not be tempted
enough to read that manpage. So I think we want documentation for both
driver and userspace developers.

Documenting this within the kernel is also pretty easy. I know that I'll
be much more tempted to do it within the kernel than if I have to switch
to some other repository, build system and whatnot.

Perhaps in this case having two places where it's documented isn't all
that bad. It's ABI after all, so the documentation never needs to
change. Theoretically.

> And even if people don't use libdrm, I think it's totally acceptable
> to ship man-pages with libdrm. Distributions are free to provide
> drm-man-pages as stand-alone package (which is _really_ easy to
> generate from libdrm).

I guess one other home for these could be the man-pages project on
kernel.org. It's what carries most (all?) of the Linux kernel-specific
man-pages (like the tty_ioctl and console_ioctl ones that you referred
to).

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20141118/07915ba6/attachment-0001.sig>