From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcos Paulo de Souza Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Docs: Input: initial uinput documentation Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:41:08 -0300 Message-ID: <20170326164106.GB2267@xfiles.domain.name> References: <20170324033502.17398-1-marcos.souza.org@gmail.com> <20170324151703.6b3dab37@lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170324151703.6b3dab37@lwn.net> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com, peter.hutterer@who-t.net List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Hi Jon, On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 03:17:03PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:34:58 -0300 > Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote: > > > this is the second iteration of this patch. The first version can be checked > > here[1]. A special thanks to Peter Hutterer who dug the last patch and suggested > > a lot of changes , hopefully, all addressed in this version. > > This seems like a good start. Of course, I have a couple of comments... > > 1) RST documentation is good, but it really needs to be hooked into the > docs build with the rest. In this case, it needs to go into the > application developer's manual. The only slight snag is ... well ... > that manual doesn't quite exist yet. Once this is ready, if it comes > through me tree, I can follow it with a patch creating that manual and > moving this section into it. Sounds good. If you want, I can verify and add this new page as well. > > 2) We don't normally put in section numbers manually in RST documents, > since Sphinx will do that for us. Great, fixed here. > > 3) Section 3.0 covers the old interface. I'm not sure we need that in > documentation in current kernels which, by definition, have the > current interface. Currently both interces can be used in mainline, but this can be nice to have for users who still run older kernels. But I can remove if you strongly disagree. > > Thanks, > > jon Thanks for the revision! -- Thanks, Marcos