Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 18/39] drm/i915: intel_pm.c: fix some ascii artwork at kernel-doc

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 05:55:10 -0400
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 09:12:06AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Preserving ascii artwork on kernel-docs is tricky, as it needs
> > to respect both the Sphinx rules and be properly parsed by
> > kernel-doc script.
> > 
> > The Sphinx syntax require code-blocks, which is:
> > 
> > 	::
> > 
> > followed by a blank line and indented lines.
> > 
> > But kernel-doc only works fine if the first and the last line
> > are indented with the same amount of spaces.
> > 
> > Also, a "\" at the end means that the next line should be merged
> > with the first one.  
> 
> my first reaction was: "do we really need those new empty ( ) blocks?"
> 
> Then I read this ;)

Yeah, it is tricky to get it right, due to kernel-doc + Sphinx here.
Also, I bet that this would be needed even for ReST files with
C code on it, as it is likely the C domain encoding at Sphinx that
handles continuation lines with "\" at the end...

> 
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> > 
> > Change the ascii artwork to be on code-blocks, starting all
> > lines at the same characters and not ending with a backslash.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 
> > To avoid mailbombing on a large number of people, only mailing lists were C/C on the cover.
> > See [PATCH v2 00/39] at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1657699522.git.mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > index f06babdb3a8c..d3393752b04b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > @@ -684,18 +684,20 @@ static const struct intel_watermark_params i845_wm_info = {
> >   * FIFO is relatively small compared to the amount of data
> >   * fetched.
> >   *
> > - * The FIFO level vs. time graph might look something like:
> > + * The FIFO level vs. time graph might look something like::
> >   *
> > - *   |\   |\
> > - *   | \  | \
> > - * __---__---__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > - * -> time
> > + *   ^
> > + *   |   |\   |\      (                          )
> > + *   |   | \  | \     (                          )
> > + *   |   __---__---__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > + *   +-------------------> time
> >   *
> > - * or perhaps like this:
> > + * or perhaps like this::
> >   *
> > - *   |\|\  |\|\
> > - * __----__----__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > - * -> time
> > + *   ^
> > + *   |     |\|\  |\|\   (                          )
> > + *   |   __----__----__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > + *   +-------------------> time
> >   *
> >   * Returns:
> >   * The watermark in bytes
> > @@ -731,13 +733,14 @@ static unsigned int intel_wm_method1(unsigned int pixel_rate,
> >   * FIFO is relatively large compared to the amount of data
> >   * fetched.
> >   *
> > - * The FIFO level vs. time graph might look something like:
> > + * The FIFO level vs. time graph might look something like::
> >   *
> > - *    |\___       |\___
> > - *    |    \___   |    \___
> > - *    |        \  |        \
> > - * __ --__--__--__--__--__--__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > - * -> time
> > + *   ^
> > + *   |     |\___       |\___        (                          )
> > + *   |     |    \___   |    \___    (                          )
> > + *   |     |        \  |        \   (                          )
> > + *   |  __ --__--__--__--__--__--__ (- plane active, _ blanking)
> > + *   +---------------------------------> time
> >   *
> >   * Returns:
> >   * The watermark in bytes
> > -- 
> > 2.36.1
> >