Re: [PATCH v4] kernel.h: add comments for system_states

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2025, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-09-05 at 16:06 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2025, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > Em Fri, 05 Sep 2025 12:02:37 +0300
>> > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> escreveu:
>> > 
>> > > On Wed, 03 Sep 2025, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> [...]
>> > > > +++ linux-next-20250819/Documentation/driver-api/pm/devices.rst
>> > > > @@ -241,6 +241,14 @@ before reactivating its class I/O queues
>> > > >  More power-aware drivers might prepare the devices for
>> > > > triggering system wakeup
>> > > >  events.
>> > > >  
>> > > > +System states available for drivers
>> > > > +-----------------------------------
>> > > > +
>> > > > +These system states are available for drivers to help them
>> > > > determine how to
>> > > > +handle state transitions.
>> > > > +
>> > > > +.. kernel-doc:: include/linux/kernel.h
>> > > > +   :doc: General system_states available for drivers
>> > > >  
>> > > >  Call Sequence Guarantees
>> > > >  ------------------------
>> > > >  
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > If the problem is with "extern" before enum, fixing kdoc be
>> > fairly trivial.
>> 
>> The non-trivial part is deciding whether you're documenting the enum
>> type or the variable. Both are equally valid options.
>
> If you're building a system that's easy to maintain, it shouldn't be at
> all non trivial: you add the documentation where someone adding a new
> state would find it.  i.e. on the enum.  If you document the variable,
> no-one adding a new state would likely look at it.  I get that in this
> case they're one after the other, but think about the precedent for
> when they're not.

Ah, I meant deciding what the *tool* should do with the documentation
when the type and the variable are bundled together like here.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel