From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: DocBook DRM framework documentation Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:12:43 +0200 Message-ID: <500D69EB.6000008@matrix-vision.de> References: <1342137623-7628-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1342137623-7628-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Hi Laurent, At a quick glance I noticed a couple of things: On 07/13/2012 02:00 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: [snip] > + > + The drm_driver structure contains static > + information that describe the driver and features it supports, and s/describe/describes/ > + pointers to methods that the DRM core will call to implement the DRM API. > + We will first go through the drm_driver static > + information fields, and will then describe individual operations in > + details as they get used in later sections. > > - > > - Driver private & performance counters > - > - The driver private hangs off the main drm_device structure and > - can be used for tracking various device-specific bits of > - information, like register offsets, command buffer status, > - register state for suspend/resume, etc. At load time, a > - driver may simply allocate one and set drm_device.dev_priv > - appropriately; it should be freed and drm_device.dev_priv set > - to NULL when the driver is unloaded. > - > + Driver Information > + > + Driver Features > + > + Drivers inform the DRM core about their requirements and supported > + features by setting appropriate flags in the > + driver_features field. Since those flags > + influence the DRM core behaviour since registration time, most of them Elsewhere you use the American spelling "behavior". [snip] > + > + Major, Minor and Patchlevel > + int major; > + int minor; > + int patchlevel; In my browser, "int minor" and "int patchlevel" look indented, whereas "int major" does not. Looks like they _should_ be indented identically. Don't know how you fix this or if you even see the same problem. > + > + The DRM core identifies driver versions by a major, minor and patch > + level triplet. The information is printed to the kernel log at > + initialization time and passed to userspace through the > + DRM_IOCTL_VERSION ioctl. > + > + > + The major and minor numbers are also used to verify the requested driver > + API version passed to DRM_IOCTL_SET_VERSION. When the driver API changes > + between minor versions, applications can call DRM_IOCTL_SET_VERSION to > + select a specific version of the API. If the requested major isn't equal > + to the driver major, or the requested minor is larger than the driver > + minor, the DRM_IOCTL_SET_VERSION call will return an error. Otherwise > + the driver's set_version() method will be called with the requested > + version. > + > + > + > + Name, Description and Date > + char *name; > + char *desc; > + char *date; Same indentation issue here. [snip] > + > + The mode_fixup operation should reject the > + mode if it can't reasonably use it. The definition of "reasonable" > + is currently fuzzy in this context. One possible behaviour would be maybe s/behaviour/behavior/ again MATRIX VISION GmbH, Talstrasse 16, DE-71570 Oppenweiler Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 271090 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Gerhard Thullner, Werner Armingeon, Uwe Furtner, Erhard Meier