Hello Andy, On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 11:29:23AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 09:00:31AM +0200, Karl Mehltretter wrote: > > From: Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) > > > > Most structs that were defined in before were > > moved to a bus specific header. Follow the movement to get the struct's > > documentation back. > > > > For the list of device ids in basics.rst use an explicit list of all the > > headers that have kernel-doc annotations and that are not described > > elsewhere (i.e. pci and mei_cl). is left out on > > purpose, ACPI_DEVICE_CLASS() is not a device id struct. > > Huh?! The device-id/acpi.h provides the ACPI device ID definition. provides both, struct acpi_device_id and the macro ACPI_DEVICE_CLASS. The latter has a kdoc comment, the former doesn't. So including in the patch makes ACPI_DEVICE_CLASS appear in the list of device-id structs, but acpi_device_id not. So while this patch doesn't implement the optimum to get acpi_device_id explicitly documented, but the purpose of the patch is to restore the from before ad428f5811bd, which is accomplished. > > > Also repair the referencing in the zh_CN translation of pci.rst and > > don't duplicate `struct mei_cl_device_id`. > > > Fixes: ad428f5811bd ("mod_devicetable.h: Split into per subsystem headers") > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) > > ... > > > Changes since v2 > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/ede7ce64f20e10660ebf6bc1b41836dad750ae3b.1783349758.git.ukleinek@kernel.org/ > > - use the :file: role for the header path in pcmcia/driver.rst (Randy) > > - say in the commit message that is left out on > > purpose (question raised by the Sashiko review) > > I am unsatisfied with how the ACPI division was handled in the above mentioned > split. Id est the include/device-id/acpi.h is *the* header that has to be used > for the IDs, not the respective "include all" linux/acpi.h. > Hence the documentation has to allow the use of the device-id/*.h directly in > the drivers (most of the cases for ACPI). I don't care much if drivers include transitively via (or another header) or explicitly. My preference is the former, but I won't argue if it's done differently. > Alternatively the OF ID *and* ACPI ID must be included to the upper lever bus > headers. So, spi.h, i2c.h, platform_device.h and so on has to *always* provide > both. That is the case today and it's sensible. So without giving a guarantee for the next 20 years, I'd say keeping it as is is fine. > > - carried Randy's Reviewed-by and Tested-by from v2, the diff changed in > > one line of markup only > > - Uwe asked me to take over the patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/apv6yQ1U-HhNglyV@monoceros/ > > It supersedes my PCI-only patch > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260905084916.40196-1-kmehltretter@gmail.com/ > > > > Randy's suggestion to add kernel-doc comments to for > > struct mei_cl_driver and include those instead of the duplicated struct is > > left for a separate patch, it touches a header outside Documentation/. > > Uwe, can you fix that? It's on my idle-todo-list. So unless someone beats me to it, I will addresss that eventually. Best regards Uwe