[PATCH] drm/mm: Some doc polish
chris at chris-wilson.co.uk
Thu Dec 29 10:54:29 UTC 2016
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:35:48AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 05:37:26PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 05:57:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > @@ -230,23 +272,23 @@ static inline u64 drm_mm_hole_node_end(const struct drm_mm_node *hole_node)
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * drm_mm_for_each_node - iterator to walk over all allocated nodes
> > > - * @entry: drm_mm_node structure to assign to in each iteration step
> > > - * @mm: drm_mm allocator to walk
> > > + * @entry: &drm_mm_node structure to assign to in each iteration step
> > If we have the &struct link, do we need to say "structure"?
> > We use a mix of "&struct structure" and plain "&struct". Choose a style
> > and make it consistent. (Bonus points for an easy to find style guide.)
> There's also "struct &struct_name" and "&struct struct_name". Anything
> goes really, and I just semi-randomly pick what reads reasonably well. The
> issue with macros is that they don't have the types in the declaration
> (compared to functions), that's why I added the &.
> And I think indicating the text that it's a structure makes some sense,
> since the link could also be to an enum.
Does "&struct struct_name" render well in the html? I think that's the
easiest style for us to remember since it matches C (and so also reads
well for someone versed in C).
> Anyway if you insist I can do some ocd for drm_mm, but for all of the drm
> docs is a bit much.
I don't insist, I just think having a recommended way of writing the
stanzas not only reduce the cognitive burden of writing them but also
> Oh and the style guides we have:
I said easy to find! :) Something like Documentation/WritingStyle
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
More information about the dri-devel