summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorNiklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>2026-09-16 15:00:32 +0200
committerNiklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>2026-09-16 16:18:00 +0200
commit8d836581f9b1f57ceaa2b47654754ef1260b410b (patch)
tree1dbd4d0dfb99c2e238356cbe947e5b0be3e3a571 /Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
downloadlinux-stable-8d836581f9b1f57ceaa2b47654754ef1260b410b.tar.gz
linux-stable-8d836581f9b1f57ceaa2b47654754ef1260b410b.zip
ata: libata-scsi: fix ata_dsm_trim_pages() kernel-docgrafted
make htmldocs fails with: Documentation/driver-api/libata:604: ./drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c:2301: ERROR: Unexpected indentation. [docutils] The Return: section of ata_dsm_trim_pages() ends its first sentence with a colon and continues with an indented bullet list. reStructuredText requires a blank line before an indented block, so docutils chokes on the list. Simply adding the missing blank line does not work either: Return: is a kernel-doc "special section", which is terminated by the first blank line, so the bullet list would end up in the Description section, detached from the sentence introducing it. Spell the two bounds out as prose instead, so that the Return: section stays self-contained. Documentation-only change. Fixes: e64e6b5dc867 ("ata: libata-scsi: scale DSM TRIM payload by MAX PAGES PER DSM COMMAND") Reported-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/b0a0b8e8-cc4f-4c7b-8bc5-fee0712d405a@redhat.com/ Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260916130031.29990-2-cassel@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst69
1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..13ab13984
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
+
+==========
+Guidelines
+==========
+
+This document describes the general project guidelines that apply to nova-core
+and nova-drm.
+
+Language
+========
+
+The Nova project uses the Rust programming language. In this context, all rules
+of the Rust for Linux project as documented in
+:doc:`../../rust/general-information` apply. Additionally, the following rules
+apply.
+
+- Unless technically necessary otherwise (e.g. uAPI), any driver code is written
+ in Rust.
+
+- Unless technically necessary, unsafe Rust code must be avoided. In case of
+ technical necessity, unsafe code should be isolated in a separate component
+ providing a safe API for other driver code to use.
+
+Style
+-----
+
+All rules of the Rust for Linux project as documented in
+:doc:`../../rust/coding-guidelines` apply.
+
+For a submit checklist, please also see the `Rust for Linux Submit checklist
+addendum <https://rust-for-linux.com/contributing#submit-checklist-addendum>`_.
+
+Documentation
+=============
+
+The availability of proper documentation is essential in terms of scalability,
+accessibility for new contributors and maintainability of a project in general,
+but especially for a driver running as complex hardware as Nova is targeting.
+
+Hence, adding documentation of any kind is very much encouraged by the project.
+
+Besides that, there are some minimum requirements.
+
+- Every non-private structure needs at least a brief doc comment explaining the
+ semantical sense of the structure, as well as potential locking and lifetime
+ requirements. It is encouraged to have the same minimum documentation for
+ non-trivial private structures.
+
+- uAPIs must be fully documented with kernel-doc comments; additionally, the
+ semantical behavior must be explained including potential special or corner
+ cases.
+
+- The APIs connecting the 1st level driver (nova-core) with 2nd level drivers
+ must be fully documented. This includes doc comments, potential locking and
+ lifetime requirements, as well as example code if applicable.
+
+- Abbreviations must be explained when introduced; terminology must be uniquely
+ defined.
+
+- Register addresses, layouts, shift values and masks must be defined properly;
+ unless obvious, the semantical sense must be documented. This only applies if
+ the author is able to obtain the corresponding information.
+
+Acceptance Criteria
+===================
+
+- Patches must only be applied if reviewed by at least one other person on the
+ mailing list; this also applies for maintainers.