Re: [PATCH RFC 07/15] Documentation: Interrupt Message store

Dey, Megha
2020-05-03T22:41:58Z

On 5/3/2020 3:28 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:32:22PM -0700, Dey, Megha wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On 4/23/2020 1:04 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 04:34:30PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/ims-howto.rst b/Documentation/ims-howto.rst
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..a18de152b393
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/ims-howto.rst
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
>>>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>> +.. include:: <isonum.txt>
>>>> +
>>>> +==========================
>>>> +The IMS Driver Guide HOWTO
>>>> +==========================
>>>> +
>>>> +:Authors: Megha Dey
>>>> +
>>>> +:Copyright: 2020 Intel Corporation
>>>> +
>>>> +About this guide
>>>> +================
>>>> +
>>>> +This guide describes the basics of Interrupt Message Store (IMS), the
>>>> +need to introduce a new interrupt mechanism, implementation details of
>>>> +IMS in the kernel, driver changes required to support IMS and the general
>>>> +misconceptions and FAQs associated with IMS.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why we need to call this IMS in kernel documentat? I know
>>> Intel is using this term, but this document is really only talking
>>> about extending the existing platform_msi stuff, which looks pretty
>>> good actually.
>>
>> hmmm, so maybe we call it something else or just say dynamic platform-msi?
>>
>>>
>>> A lot of this is good for the cover letter..
>>
>> Well, I got a lot of comments internally and externally about how the cover
>> page needs to have just the basics and all the ugly details can go in the
>> Documentation. So well, I am confused here.
>
> Documentation should be documentation for users and developers.
>
> Justification and rational for why functionality should be merged
> belong in the commit message and cover letter, IMHO.
>
> Here too much time is spent belabouring IMS's rational and not enough
> is spent explaining how a driver should consume it or how a platform
> should provide it.
>
> And since most of this tightly related to platform-msi it might make
> sense to start by documenting platform msi then adding a diff on that
> to explain what change is being made to accommodate IMS.
>
> Most likely few people are very familiar with platform-msi in the
> first place..

Ok makes sense, will rework this in the next version..
>
> Jason
>