[PATCH 05/13] efi_loader: Move some memory-function comments to header

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 08:55, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 08:37:33AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 02:35, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 25.11.24 21:44, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Exported functions should be documented in the header file, not the
> > > > implementation. We tend to make such updates on a piecemeal basis to
> > > > avoid a 'flag day'. Move some comments related to memory allocation to
> > > > follow the convention.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > >
> > > Please, have a look at this line in doc/
> > >
> > > doc/api/efi.rst:78:
> > > .. kernel-doc:: lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
> >
> > Hmm, we should not add C files as then we end up with all sorts of
> > internal functions, like checksum(). The help is a bit of a mess on
> > that page IMO and it could use an index at the top or side.
>
> Why? Looking at the linux kernel (where we borrow this framework from
> and lots of developers expect to follow that style) it's extremely
> common to kernel-doc C files. I don't see why documenting internal
> functions (which should be clear as being internal) is a problem.

It depends what you mean by docs. U-Boot puts the documentation for
exported functions in header files.

Putting docs in C files clutters the docs with internal
implementations, when most people just want to see the API. The way
U-Boot does things, it is easy to see the internal (implementation)
docs by looking at the C code and the external functions by looking at
the header files.

Regards,
Simon