[PATCH 0/1] Start conversion of PowerPC docs

[PATCH 0/1] Start conversion of PowerPC docs

[Tobin C. Harding]

Hi Michael,

As discussed at LCA here is the start to the docs conversion for PowerPC
to RST.

This applies cleanly on top of the mainline (5.20-rc5) and Jon's tree
(docs-next branch).

I'm guessing it should go in through the PowerPC tree because I doubt
you want to review this Jon, it's one big single patch (all blame for
that falls on mpe ;)

This patch converts all the files that do _not_ contain ASCII art - I'm
not sure how to go about doing those, suggestions please.

From the commit message:

 - Add SPDX license identifier to each new RST file.

    .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

 - User correct heading adornments.

 - Make all lines < 72 characters in width.

 - Use correct indentation for code blocks, add syntax highlighting

 - Sparingly use double ticks if it makes the files easier to parse
   both in text and on the web.

 - Fix any super obvious typos (lean towards not making changes so that
   we don't introduce errors).

Edited as text files (obviously) and formatted as HTML to verify
rendering, no other formats verified.

thanks,
Tobin.

Tobin C. Harding (1):
  docs: powerpc: Convert docs to RST format.

 Documentation/index.rst                       |   1 +
 Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.rst         |  60 ++++
 Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.txt         |  58 ---
 Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.rst         | 140 ++++++++
 Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.txt         | 141 --------
 Documentation/powerpc/conf.py                 |  10 +
 Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.rst        |  62 ++++
 Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.txt        |  56 ---
 .../powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.rst        | 319 +++++++++++++++++
 .../powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.txt        | 334 ------------------
 Documentation/powerpc/index.rst               |  21 ++
 Documentation/powerpc/isa-versions.rst        | 234 ++++++++----
 Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.rst             |  52 +++
 Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.txt             |  39 --
 Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.rst             | 148 ++++++++
 Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.txt             | 137 -------
 Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.rst              | 177 ++++++++++
 Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.txt              | 151 --------
 .../{syscall64-abi.txt => syscall64-abi.rst}  |  80 +++--
 .../powerpc/transactional_memory.rst          | 259 ++++++++++++++
 .../powerpc/transactional_memory.txt          | 244 -------------
 21 files changed, 1460 insertions(+), 1263 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/conf.py
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/index.rst
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.txt
 rename Documentation/powerpc/{syscall64-abi.txt => syscall64-abi.rst} (58%)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.txt

-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH 1/1] docs: powerpc: Convert to RST format

[Randy Dunlap]

On 2/6/19 10:03 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> The PowerPC docs have yet to be converted to RST format.  Let's kick it
> off by doing all the files that _don't_ contain ASCII art.
> 
> - Add SPDX license identifier to each new RST file.
> 
>     .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> 
> - User correct heading adornments.
> 
> - Make all lines < 72 characters in width.
> 
> - Use correct indentation for code blocks, add syntax highlighting
> 
> - Sparingly use double ticks if it makes the files easier to parse
>   both in text and on the web.
> 
> - Fix any super obvious typos (lean towards not making changes so that
>   we don't introduce errors).
> 
> Edited as text files (obviously) and formatted as HTML to verify
> rendering, no other formats verified.
> 
> Convert docs to RST format, adding license.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <tobin@kernel.org>

Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>

thanks.


> ---
>  Documentation/index.rst                       |   1 +
>  Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.rst         |  60 ++++
>  Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.txt         |  58 ---
>  Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.rst         | 140 ++++++++
>  Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.txt         | 141 --------
>  Documentation/powerpc/conf.py                 |  10 +
>  Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.rst        |  62 ++++
>  Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.txt        |  56 ---
>  .../powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.rst        | 319 +++++++++++++++++
>  .../powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.txt        | 334 ------------------
>  Documentation/powerpc/index.rst               |  21 ++
>  Documentation/powerpc/isa-versions.rst        | 234 ++++++++----
>  Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.rst             |  52 +++
>  Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.txt             |  39 --
>  Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.rst             | 148 ++++++++
>  Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.txt             | 137 -------
>  Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.rst              | 177 ++++++++++
>  Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.txt              | 151 --------
>  .../{syscall64-abi.txt => syscall64-abi.rst}  |  80 +++--
>  .../powerpc/transactional_memory.rst          | 259 ++++++++++++++
>  .../powerpc/transactional_memory.txt          | 244 -------------
>  21 files changed, 1460 insertions(+), 1263 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.rst
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/DAWR-POWER9.txt
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.rst
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.txt
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/conf.py
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.rst
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/cpu_features.txt
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.rst
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/eeh-pci-error-recovery.txt
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/index.rst
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.rst
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/mpc52xx.txt
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.rst
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/pmu-ebb.txt
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.rst
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/ptrace.txt
>  rename Documentation/powerpc/{syscall64-abi.txt => syscall64-abi.rst} (58%)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.rst
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/powerpc/transactional_memory.txt


-- 
~Randy

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Start conversion of PowerPC docs

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Thu,  7 Feb 2019 17:03:15 +1100
"Tobin C. Harding" <tobin@kernel.org> wrote:

> As discussed at LCA here is the start to the docs conversion for PowerPC
> to RST.
> 
> This applies cleanly on top of the mainline (5.20-rc5) and Jon's tree
> (docs-next branch).
> 
> I'm guessing it should go in through the PowerPC tree because I doubt
> you want to review this Jon, it's one big single patch (all blame for
> that falls on mpe ;)

Well, I went and took a look anyway, being a glutton for punishment.  So
naturally I do have some comments...

- I don't think this should be a top-level directory full of docs; the top
  level is already rather overpopulated.  At worst, we should create an
  arch/ directory for architecture-specific docs.  I kind of think that
  this should be thought through a bit more, though, with an eye toward
  who the audience is.  Some of it is clearly developer documentation, and
  some of it is aimed at admins; ptrace.rst is user-space API stuff.
  Nobody ever welcomes me saying this, but we should really split things
  into the appropriate manuals according to audience.

- It would be good to know how much of this stuff is still relevant.
  bootwrapper.txt hasn't been modified since it was added in 2008.
  cpu_features.txt predates the git era, as does mpc52xx.txt; hvcs.txt is
  nearly as old. And so on.  Can we perhaps stop dragging some of those
  docs around?

- The use of flat-table in isa-versions.rst totally wrecks the readability
  of those tables in the plain-text version.  Said tables are pretty close
  to being RST in their original form; it would be far better to just fix
  anything needing fixing but to keep that form.

- I'm glad you're adding SPDX lines, but do you know that the license is
  correct in each case?  It's best to be careful with such things.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Start conversion of PowerPC docs

[Michael Ellerman]

Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> writes:
> On Thu,  7 Feb 2019 17:03:15 +1100
> "Tobin C. Harding" <tobin@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> As discussed at LCA here is the start to the docs conversion for PowerPC
>> to RST.
>> 
>> This applies cleanly on top of the mainline (5.20-rc5) and Jon's tree
>> (docs-next branch).
>> 
>> I'm guessing it should go in through the PowerPC tree because I doubt
>> you want to review this Jon, it's one big single patch (all blame for
>> that falls on mpe ;)
>
> Well, I went and took a look anyway, being a glutton for punishment.  So
> naturally I do have some comments...
>
> - I don't think this should be a top-level directory full of docs; the top
>   level is already rather overpopulated.  At worst, we should create an
>   arch/ directory for architecture-specific docs.

We currently have arch specific directories for arm, arm64, ia64, m68k,
nios2, openrisc, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh, sparc, x86, xtensa.

Do you mean they should all be moved to Documentation/arch ?

>   I kind of think that
>   this should be thought through a bit more, though, with an eye toward
>   who the audience is.  Some of it is clearly developer documentation, and
>   some of it is aimed at admins; ptrace.rst is user-space API stuff.
>   Nobody ever welcomes me saying this, but we should really split things
>   into the appropriate manuals according to audience.

I don't think any of it's aimed at admins, but I haven't read every
word. I see it as aimed at kernel devs or people writing directly to the
kernel API, eg. gdb developers reading ptrace.rst.

If Documentation/ wants to be more user focused and nicely curated
perhaps we need arch/foo/docs/ for these developer centric docs?

> - It would be good to know how much of this stuff is still relevant.
>   bootwrapper.txt hasn't been modified since it was added in 2008.

It hasn't been modified but AFAIK it's still pretty much accurate and
definitely something we want to have documented.

>   cpu_features.txt predates the git era

But so does the code it's documenting.

>   as does mpc52xx.txt; hvcs.txt is nearly as old. And so on. Can we
>   perhaps stop dragging some of those docs around?

We support some hardware that is ~25 years old, so we have some old
documentation too, and I'd rather we didn't drop things just because
they're old.

> - The use of flat-table in isa-versions.rst totally wrecks the readability
>   of those tables in the plain-text version.  Said tables are pretty close
>   to being RST in their original form; it would be far better to just fix
>   anything needing fixing but to keep that form.

Yes agree, I'd like the docs to be as readable as possible as plain text.

> - I'm glad you're adding SPDX lines, but do you know that the license is
>   correct in each case?  It's best to be careful with such things.

None of the files have licenses so I think we just fall back to COPYING
don't we? In which case GPL-2.0 is correct for all files.

cheers

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Start conversion of PowerPC docs

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 14:40:28 +1100
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:

> > - I don't think this should be a top-level directory full of docs; the top
> >   level is already rather overpopulated.  At worst, we should create an
> >   arch/ directory for architecture-specific docs.  
> 
> We currently have arch specific directories for arm, arm64, ia64, m68k,
> nios2, openrisc, parisc, powerpc, s390, sh, sparc, x86, xtensa.
> 
> Do you mean they should all be moved to Documentation/arch ?

Over time I'm really trying to bring some organization to Documentation/,
and to have that reflected in an RST tree that looks like somebody actually
thought about it.  So yes, I would eventually like to see something like
Documentation/arch, just like we have arch/ in the top-level directory.

> >   I kind of think that
> >   this should be thought through a bit more, though, with an eye toward
> >   who the audience is.  Some of it is clearly developer documentation, and
> >   some of it is aimed at admins; ptrace.rst is user-space API stuff.
> >   Nobody ever welcomes me saying this, but we should really split things
> >   into the appropriate manuals according to audience.  
> 
> I don't think any of it's aimed at admins, but I haven't read every
> word. I see it as aimed at kernel devs or people writing directly to the
> kernel API, eg. gdb developers reading ptrace.rst.
> 
> If Documentation/ wants to be more user focused and nicely curated
> perhaps we need arch/foo/docs/ for these developer centric docs?

Stuff for GDB developers is best placed in the userspace-api docbook; we're
trying to concentrate that there.  Stuff for kernel developers is a bit
more diffuse still; arch/foo/docs may end up being the best place for it in
the end, yes.

> > - It would be good to know how much of this stuff is still relevant.
> >   bootwrapper.txt hasn't been modified since it was added in 2008.  
> 
> It hasn't been modified but AFAIK it's still pretty much accurate and
> definitely something we want to have documented.

That's fine for this (and all the others); I'm just hoping that somebody
has thought about it.  We're carrying a *lot* of dusty old stuff that, IMO,
can only serve to confuse those who read it.  If these files don't fall
into that category, that's great.

> We support some hardware that is ~25 years old, so we have some old
> documentation too, and I'd rather we didn't drop things just because
> they're old.

I agree, as long as they remain correct and relevant.

> > - I'm glad you're adding SPDX lines, but do you know that the license is
> >   correct in each case?  It's best to be careful with such things.  
> 
> None of the files have licenses so I think we just fall back to COPYING
> don't we? In which case GPL-2.0 is correct for all files.

That's often the best choice, though some people have resorted to some
rather more in-depth archeology to try to figure out what the original
author actually intended.  Again, I'm just asking so that we're sure it's
the best choice.

Thanks,

jon