Re: [PATCH 2/2] w1: w1_therm: Add support for GXCAS GX20MH01 device.

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>]

Em Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:06:19 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:

> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:57:02AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:32:27 +0300
> > Ivan Zaentsev <ivan.zaentsev@wirenboard.ru> escreveu:
> >   
> > > Tuesday, October 6, 2020, 4:19:15 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > >   
> > > >> diff --git a/Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst b/Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst
> > > >> index f1148181f53e..00376501a5ef 100644
> > > >> --- a/Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst
> > > >> +++ b/Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst    
> > >   
> > > >>  
> > > >> @@ -130,4 +131,12 @@ conversion and temperature reads 85.00 (powerup value) or 127.94 (insufficient
> > > >>  power), the driver returns a conversion error. Bit mask ``2`` enables poll for
> > > >>  conversion completion (normal power only) by generating read cycles on the bus
> > > >>  after conversion starts. In parasite power mode this feature is not available.
> > > >> -Feature bit masks may be combined (OR).
> > > >> +Feature bit masks may be combined (OR). See accompanying sysfs documentation:
> > > >> +:ref:`Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst <w1_therm>`
> > > >> +    
> > >   
> > > > As warned by Sphinx, this cross-reference is broken:    
> > >   
> > > >         .../Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst:125: WARNING:
> > > > undefined label: w1_therm (if the link has no caption the label must precede a section header)    
> > > 
> > > Would this be ok?  
> > 
> > Yeah, sure!
> >   
> > > 
> > > "More details in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-w1_therm"
> > >   
> > > > Not sure what you wanted to point here.    
> > > 
> > > A link to a driver's sysfs interface, but sysfs docs are text
> > > files and seem to not be included in Sphynx Docs.  
> > 
> > I sent upstream sometime ago a patch series adding ABI to Sphinx, but I 
> > was not merged, not sure why:
> > 
> > 	https://git.linuxtv.org/mchehab/experimental.git/log/?h=abi_patches_v5.6  
> 
> I think the raft of different patches floating around at the time made
> me totally confused as to what was, and was not, the latest versions.

Yeah, there were lots of patches floating around that time.

I also recall that someone (Jeni?) asked if the best wouldn't be to
just convert the ABI files to ReST directly.

> I'll be glad to look at them again, if you want to rebase after 5.10-rc1
> is out and resend them, as I think this should be showing up in the
> documentation.

Surely. I'll rebase them after 5.10-rc1 and re-submit. 

What strategy do you prefer? Keep the files with the same format as
today (allowing them to optionally have ReST markups) or to convert
them to .rst directly?

In the latter case, the best would be to apply it as early as possible
after 5.10-rc1, as it may cause conflicts with other patches being
submitted for 5.11.

In the former case, as there are a few other places like w1_therm that want
cross-references to ABI, I'll try to automate a way to generate identifiers
for processed ABI files.

Thanks,
Mauro