linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] w1: w1_therm: Add support for GXCAS GX20MH01 device.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201007114359.GA2167293@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 13:43:59 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ivan Zaentsev <ivan.zaentsev@...enboard.ru>,
        Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Akira Shimahara <akira215corp@...il.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Evgeny Boger <boger@...enboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] w1: w1_therm: Add support for GXCAS GX20MH01 device.

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 01:05:49PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:06:19 +0200
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> escreveu:
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:57:02AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Em Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:32:27 +0300
> > > Ivan Zaentsev <ivan.zaentsev@...enboard.ru> escreveu:
> > >   
> > > > Tuesday, October 6, 2020, 4:19:15 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > >   
> > > > >> diff --git a/Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst b/Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst
> > > > >> index f1148181f53e..00376501a5ef 100644
> > > > >> --- a/Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst
> > > > >> +++ b/Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst    
> > > >   
> > > > >>  
> > > > >> @@ -130,4 +131,12 @@ conversion and temperature reads 85.00 (powerup value) or 127.94 (insufficient
> > > > >>  power), the driver returns a conversion error. Bit mask ``2`` enables poll for
> > > > >>  conversion completion (normal power only) by generating read cycles on the bus
> > > > >>  after conversion starts. In parasite power mode this feature is not available.
> > > > >> -Feature bit masks may be combined (OR).
> > > > >> +Feature bit masks may be combined (OR). See accompanying sysfs documentation:
> > > > >> +:ref:`Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst <w1_therm>`
> > > > >> +    
> > > >   
> > > > > As warned by Sphinx, this cross-reference is broken:    
> > > >   
> > > > >         .../Documentation/w1/slaves/w1_therm.rst:125: WARNING:
> > > > > undefined label: w1_therm (if the link has no caption the label must precede a section header)    
> > > > 
> > > > Would this be ok?  
> > > 
> > > Yeah, sure!
> > >   
> > > > 
> > > > "More details in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-w1_therm"
> > > >   
> > > > > Not sure what you wanted to point here.    
> > > > 
> > > > A link to a driver's sysfs interface, but sysfs docs are text
> > > > files and seem to not be included in Sphynx Docs.  
> > > 
> > > I sent upstream sometime ago a patch series adding ABI to Sphinx, but I 
> > > was not merged, not sure why:
> > > 
> > > 	https://git.linuxtv.org/mchehab/experimental.git/log/?h=abi_patches_v5.6  
> > 
> > I think the raft of different patches floating around at the time made
> > me totally confused as to what was, and was not, the latest versions.
> 
> Yeah, there were lots of patches floating around that time.
> 
> I also recall that someone (Jeni?) asked if the best wouldn't be to
> just convert the ABI files to ReST directly.
> 
> > I'll be glad to look at them again, if you want to rebase after 5.10-rc1
> > is out and resend them, as I think this should be showing up in the
> > documentation.
> 
> Surely. I'll rebase them after 5.10-rc1 and re-submit. 
> 
> What strategy do you prefer? Keep the files with the same format as
> today (allowing them to optionally have ReST markups) or to convert
> them to .rst directly?
> 
> In the latter case, the best would be to apply it as early as possible
> after 5.10-rc1, as it may cause conflicts with other patches being
> submitted for 5.11.

The existing format if at all possible, doing wholesale changes is a
mess and wouldn't be recommended.

I think you already fixed up the entries that had problems being parsed
in the past, if not, we can resolve those as well.

thanks,

greg k-h