[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm: Documentation style guide

[Lukas Wunner]

Hi,

I wouldn't normally nitpick like this but since I was reading it anyway
and you were asking for "OCD doc style thing". :-)

This is a proofread of the force-pushed v2 in drm-intel-nightly
(9a8730ddfe1d).


> +  <sect1>
> +    <title>Style Guidelines</title>
> +    <para>
> +      For consistency this documentation use American English. Abbreviations
                                               ^
                                               s/use/uses/

> +      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
                              ^
                              insert comma

> +      characters kerneldoc provides: @parameter for function parameters, @member
> +      for structure members, &structure to reference structures and
> +      function() for functions. These all get automatically hyperlinked if
> +      kerneldoc for the referenced objects exists. When referencing entries in
> +      function vtables please use -<vfunc(). Note that kerneldoc does
                                      ^
                                      >

> +      not support referencing struct members directly, so please add a reference
> +      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 chances that they're correct. Within the
> +      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 and their meanings. Currently there's no consensus 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.
> +    </para>
> +  </sect1>

Otherwise looks nice, thank you!

Best regards,

Lukas