[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] [RFC] drm: Documentation style guide

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hello,

On Tuesday 08 December 2015 10:59:05 Pierre Moreau wrote:
> On 09:49 AM - Dec 08 2015, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Every time I type or review docs this seems a bit different. Try to
> > document the common style so we can try to unify at least new docs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> > ---
> > 
> >  Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl
> > b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl index 86e5b12a49ba..5698c93dae8b 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl
> > +++ b/Documentation/DocBook/gpu.tmpl
> > @@ -124,6 +124,43 @@
> >      <para>
> >        [Insert diagram of typical DRM stack here]
> >      </para>
> > +  <sect1>
> > +    <title>Style Guidelines</title>
> > +    <para>
> > +      For consistency these documentations use American English.
> > Abbreviations
> > +      are written as all-uppercase, for example: DRM, KMS, IOCTL, CRTC,
> > and so
> > +      on. To aid in reading documentations make full use of the markup
> > +      characters kerneldoc provides: @parameter for function paramters,
> > @member
>
> paramters -> parameters
> 
> > +      for structure members, &structure to refernce structures and
> 
> refernce -> reference
> 
> > +      function() for functions. These all get automatically hyperlinked
> > if
> > +      kerneldoc for the referencec objects exists When referencing
> > entries in
>
> referencec -> referenced, missing '.' after exists
> 
> > +      function vtables please use -<vfunc(). Note that with kerneldoc
> > does
>
> Isn't "with" too much here? "Note that kerneldoc does not […]"?
> 
> > +      not support referncing struct members directly, so please add a
> > reference
>
> referncing -> referencing
> 
> > +      to the vtable struct somewhere in the same paragraph or at least
> > section.
> > +    </para>
> > +    <para>
> > +      Except in special situations (to separate locked from unlocked
> > variants)
> > +      locking requirements for functions aren't documented in the
> > kerneldoc.
> > +      Instead locking should be check at runtime using e.g.
> > +      <code>WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(...));</code>. Since it's much
> > easier to
> > +      ignore documentation than runtime noise this provides more value.
> > And on
> > +      top of that runtime checks do need to be updated when the locking
> > rules
> > +      change, increasing the changes that they're correct. Within the

s/changes/chances/

> > +      documentation the locking rules should be explained in the relevant
> > +      structures: Either in the comment for the lock explaining what it
> > +      protects, or data fields need a note about which lock protects
> > them, or
> > +      both.
> > +    </para>
> > +    <para>
> > +      Functions which have a non-<code>void</code> return value should
> > have a
> > +      section called "Returns" explaining the expected return values in
> > +      different cases an their meanings. Currently there's no consensus

s/an/and/

Apart from that,

Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>

> > whether
> > +      that section name should be all upper-case or not, and whether it
> > should
> > +      end in a colon or not. Go with the file-local style. Other common
> > section
> > +      names are "Notes" with information for dangerous or tricky corner
> > cases,
> > +      and "FIXME" where the interface could be cleaned up.
> 
> Why not define (and use) a single style for naming all sections? Old
> documentation might not use it, but it should be doable to upgrade those old
> documents.
> 
> > +    </para>
> > +  </sect1>
> > 
> >    </chapter>
> >    <!-- Internals -->

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart