Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] media: Documentation: Add NXP neoisp driver documentation

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Incorrect use of single backticks will cause Sphinx build warnings due to unresolved cross-references.
--

commit 930837ef3aa44bc2f8f8a827637c74321c6a1710
Author: Antoine Bouyer <antoine.bouyer@nxp.com>

media: Documentation: Add NXP neoisp driver documentation

This commit adds documentation for the NXP neoisp driver, describing its
hardware pipeline, media topology, and userspace API. It introduces new
ReST files and diagrams in the admin-guide and userspace-api sections.

> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/media/nxp-neoisp.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/media/nxp-neoisp.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..16117112b701e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/media/nxp-neoisp.rst

[ ... ]

> +Neoisp driver
> +=============
> +
> +Neoisp driver is located under drivers/media/platform/nxp/neoisp.
> +It uses the `V4L2 API` and the `V4L2 subdev API` to register capture and output
> +video devices in addition to a subdevice for neoisp that connects the video
> +devices into a media graph realized using the `Media Controller (MC) API`.

This isn't a bug, but does the use of single backticks here cause Sphinx
build warnings?

In the kernel documentation environment, the default Sphinx role interprets
single backticks as cross-references. If there are no existing reference
targets for these strings, the build will emit undefined label warnings.

Should these use double backticks to format them as literal text instead?

[ ... ]

> +neoisp-params
> +-------------
> +
> +The neoisp-params output meta device receives configuration data to be written
> +to Neoisp registers and internal memory for desired input image processing.
> +This v4l2 device accepts the generic `extensible parameters` format.

Could this single backtick usage for the extensible parameters format also
cause an undefined label warning?

[ ... ]

> +Control
> +=======
> +
> +To support additional neoisp hardware revisions, the read-only bitmask control
> +`V4L2_CID_NEOISP_SUPPORTED_PARAMS_BLOCKS` can be used to query the list of
> +supported blocks. Each bit represents the availability of the corresponding

Will this single backtick usage for V4L2_CID_NEOISP_SUPPORTED_PARAMS_BLOCKS
similarly trigger documentation build warnings?

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/media/v4l/metafmt-nxp-neoisp.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/media/v4l/metafmt-nxp-neoisp.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..5a1b0c555a03e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/media/v4l/metafmt-nxp-neoisp.rst

[ ... ]

> +Extensible parameters configuration format
> +==========================================
> +
> +When using the `extensible parameters` configuration format, parameters are
> +passed to the :ref:`neoisp-params <neoisp_params>` metadata output video node
> +using the `V4L2_META_FMT_NEO_ISP_EXT_PARAMS` meta format.

There are a few more instances of single backticks here. Should these be
converted to double backticks as well to avoid Sphinx warnings?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260511132629.1300868-1-antoine.bouyer@nxp.com?part=5