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

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

On 11/26/24 23:33, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 01:04:25PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I'm sorry, that's a circular definition. And no, there is not a hard and
> fast rule that we only put kernel-doc style comments in header files
> (which are consumed by other files and tooling to generate
> documentation).
>
>> 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.
>
> Or it makes things harder to understand because the human readable
> documentation for a given function is separate from the file the
> implements the function. This is possibly why in the linux kernel, where
> we borrow "kernel-doc" from, documentation is frequently in the C file
> which is then included in Documentation files (the type you objected to
> in the start of this patch) which include additional human-readable
> explanation of the intention and usage of the API in question.
>

For static functions we will continue to have function documentation in
the C files and not in the headers. I personally never looked up the API
documentation in the HTML docs but always in the source.

I am not opposed against moving the EFI function documentation into the
header files. But we should update doc/develop/efi.rst accordingly in
the same patch series. This is missing here.

Best regards

Heinrich