[PATCH] doc/buildman: fix missing :: on examples

[David Lechner]

On 3/9/26 7:50 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 3/6/26 20:52, David Lechner wrote:
>> Fix 4 instances in buildman.rst where examples were missing :: for
>> proper formatting. Three cases just had a single : and in one case,
>> : didn't make grammatical sense, so it gets a stand-alone :: along
>> with fixing the indent.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner at baylibre.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/buildman/buildman.rst | 16 +++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/buildman/buildman.rst b/tools/buildman/buildman.rst
>> index 9e850b26ec0..a2061715788 100644
>> --- a/tools/buildman/buildman.rst
>> +++ b/tools/buildman/buildman.rst
>> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ the '&' operator to limit the selection:
>>   - 'freescale & arm sandbox' - all Freescale boards with ARM architecture, plus
>>     sandbox
>>   -You can also use -x to specifically exclude some boards. For example:
>> +You can also use -x to specifically exclude some boards. For example::
>>       buildman arm -x nvidia,freescale,.*ball$
>>   @@ -970,10 +970,12 @@ a set of (tag, value) pairs.
>>       settings file. They can also be useful when building U-Boot against other
>>       open source software.
>>   -    [make-flags]
>> -    at91-boards=ENABLE_AT91_TEST=1
>> -    snapper9260=${at91-boards} BUILD_TAG=442
>> -    snapper9g45=${at91-boards} BUILD_TAG=443
>> +    ::
> 
> Thank you for addressing the documentation issues.
> 
> In the documentation we tend to prefer syntax-highlighting.

I used :: to be consistent with the rest of the file. Should I change the
entire file to .. code-block:: ?

> 
> .. code-block:: ini
>