[U-Boot] [RFC 0/3] uboot-doc User's Manual Generation Tool

Robin Getz
2009-07-31T01:49:02Z

On Thu 30 Jul 2009 15:55, Wolfgang Denk pondered:
> Dear Robin Getz,
>
> In message <200907301550.40651.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> you wrote:
> >
> > I assume - no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
> > Texts? or did you desire something else?
>
> We don't have such detailed plans yet.

Depending on the exact final plans, Analog Devices would be happy to donate
anything from the U-Boot documentation we have created over the past few
years....

https://docs.blackfin.uclinux.org/doku.php?id=bootloaders:u-boot

While the examples are Blackfin specific, most should be generic enough to
ensure that the reader should understand what to do on their architecture. We
see maintaining something separate a duplication of effort, and wasted
resources spent on documentation creation (which is a task most developers
don't like anyways)...

I think Mike brought this up awhile ago -
http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net/msg04491.html

Which gets back to the original question...

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:02:18 -0700 Mike Frysinger pondered:
> On Thursday 17 April 2008, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > > On Monday 14 April 2008, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> > >> > we maintain a Blackfin-specific u-boot wiki that goes into quite a
> > >> > bit of detail, some of which is duplicated with the main u-boot
> > >> > wiki. how do people feel about extending the u-boot wiki to allow
> > >> > for arch-specific details ?
> > >>
> > >> What exactly do you have in mind? I surely don't see any principal
> > >> problem here.
> > >>
> > >> It would certainly be valuable to get all U-Boot related info
> > >> collected in a central place and have pointers wherever that make
> > >> sense...
> > >
> > > from my reading of the wiki, it's more of a technical/command reference
> > > than a guide. the wiki we maintain is geared to be more of a guide. i
> > > think the two can be merged, i just dont want to convert things only to
> > > find out people dont want to take it that direction.
> >
> > Just to be clear, we are discussing the DULG wiki, right?
>
> is there any other worth talking about :)
>
> > I agree that in the current state the documentation is more a reference
> > but IIRC that wasn't really a conscious design decision. It simply
> > turned out this way in the end.
> >
> > So I do not see any general problem in adding "guide style" sections in
> > there. Maybe then most of the current documentation can then be shifted
> > to a "commands reference" section.
>
> OK
>
> > One problem I see though is how to correctly adapt such sections to the
> > board specific nature of the DULG. Hopefully we can get away with
> > mostly generic text passages and only a few ifdefs. It would be very
> > helpful to know more concrete plans (outline!) to think further about
> > these implications.

Are there any thoughts about this?