On 23/9/2022 4:34 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 23.09.22 00:04, Chris Johns wrote:
On 22/9/2022 6:18 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 17/09/2022 09:31, Chris Johns wrote:
+.. index:: rtems_configuration_get_rtems_api_configuration()
+
+.. _InterfaceRtemsConfigurationGetRtemsApiConfiguration:
+
+rtems_configuration_get_rtems_api_configuration()
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Gets the Classic API Configuration Table of this application.
Would a comment here that the header file xxx.h describes the fields in the
returned structure?

The API data structures are fully specified and documented.

We do not have doxygen links online and we do not have suitable links in a release. So I am not sure how this helps unless you know part of all of the
answer to the question ... where is it defined?

For example:

https://git.rtems.org/rtems-central/tree/spec/rtems/config/if/api-table.yml


What is missing is
the Sphinx documentation generation support. One option would be to add a "Types" section to the manager chapters and document the corresponding types in
this section.

I was after something a little simpler. For the structs a file name the struct is in so a user can quickly find it without needing to understand any of the
code, headers or how we do things.

It wouldn't be hard to generate some documentation for types. There are some options to do this.

Oh OK, nice.

Do we want a single chapter with all Classic API types?

Do we want a section per manager for the types?

Which types should be documented?

I would document them in a single chapter and only structs.

There are 2 cases in relation to this thread and patch. Having something documented with the macro that is the right type and then a simple means to step from a specific function/macro to the fields if a struct. Does this make sense?

I have not consider any more so I am not sure how we handle all the types. Maybe Joel or Gedare do. :)

Chris
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Reply via email to