Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 18/39] drm/i915: intel_pm.c: fix some ascii artwork at kernel-doc

Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-09-06T19:52:59Z

On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 05:55:10 -0400
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 09:12:06AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Preserving ascii artwork on kernel-docs is tricky, as it needs
> > to respect both the Sphinx rules and be properly parsed by
> > kernel-doc script.
> >
> > The Sphinx syntax require code-blocks, which is:
> >
> > ::
> >
> > followed by a blank line and indented lines.
> >
> > But kernel-doc only works fine if the first and the last line
> > are indented with the same amount of spaces.
> >
> > Also, a "\" at the end means that the next line should be merged
> > with the first one.
>
> my first reaction was: "do we really need those new empty ( ) blocks?"
>
> Then I read this ;)

Yeah, it is tricky to get it right, due to kernel-doc + Sphinx here.
Also, I bet that this would be needed even for ReST files with
C code on it, as it is likely the C domain encoding at Sphinx that
handles continuation lines with "\" at the end...

>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>
> >
> > Change the ascii artwork to be on code-blocks, starting all
> > lines at the same characters and not ending with a backslash.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >
> > To avoid mailbombing on a large number of people, only mailing lists were C/C on the cover.
> > See [PATCH v2 00/39] at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1657699522.git.mchehab@kernel.org/
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > index f06babdb3a8c..d3393752b04b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > @@ -684,18 +684,20 @@ static const struct intel_watermark_params i845_wm_info = {
> > * FIFO is relatively small compared to the amount of data
> > * fetched.
> > *
> > - * The FIFO level vs. time graph might look something like:
> > + * The FIFO level vs. time graph might look something like::
> > *
> > - * |\ |\
> > - * | \ | \
> > - * __---__---__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > - * -> time
> > + * ^
> > + * | |\ |\ ( )
> > + * | | \ | \ ( )
> > + * | __---__---__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > + * +-------------------> time
> > *
> > - * or perhaps like this:
> > + * or perhaps like this::
> > *
> > - * |\|\ |\|\
> > - * __----__----__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > - * -> time
> > + * ^
> > + * | |\|\ |\|\ ( )
> > + * | __----__----__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > + * +-------------------> time
> > *
> > * Returns:
> > * The watermark in bytes
> > @@ -731,13 +733,14 @@ static unsigned int intel_wm_method1(unsigned int pixel_rate,
> > * FIFO is relatively large compared to the amount of data
> > * fetched.
> > *
> > - * The FIFO level vs. time graph might look something like:
> > + * The FIFO level vs. time graph might look something like::
> > *
> > - * |\___ |\___
> > - * | \___ | \___
> > - * | \ | \
> > - * __ --__--__--__--__--__--__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > - * -> time
> > + * ^
> > + * | |\___ |\___ ( )
> > + * | | \___ | \___ ( )
> > + * | | \ | \ ( )
> > + * | __ --__--__--__--__--__--__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > + * +---------------------------------> time
> > *
> > * Returns:
> > * The watermark in bytes
> > --
> > 2.36.1
> >