On Thu 30 Jul 2009 15:55, Wolfgang Denk pondered:
Dear Robin Getz,
In message 200907301550.40651.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org you wrote:
I assume - no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts? or did you desire something else?
We don't have such detailed plans yet.
Depending on the exact final plans, Analog Devices would be happy to donate anything from the U-Boot documentation we have created over the past few years....
https://docs.blackfin.uclinux.org/doku.php?id=bootloaders:u-boot
While the examples are Blackfin specific, most should be generic enough to ensure that the reader should understand what to do on their architecture. We see maintaining something separate a duplication of effort, and wasted resources spent on documentation creation (which is a task most developers don't like anyways)...
I think Mike brought this up awhile ago - http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04491.html
Which gets back to the original question...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:02:18 -0700 Mike Frysinger pondered:
On Thursday 17 April 2008, Detlev Zundel wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Monday 14 April 2008, Detlev Zundel wrote:
we maintain a Blackfin-specific u-boot wiki that goes into quite a bit of detail, some of which is duplicated with the main u-boot wiki. how do people feel about extending the u-boot wiki to allow for arch-specific details ?
What exactly do you have in mind? I surely don't see any principal problem here.
It would certainly be valuable to get all U-Boot related info collected in a central place and have pointers wherever that make sense...
from my reading of the wiki, it's more of a technical/command reference than a guide. the wiki we maintain is geared to be more of a guide. i think the two can be merged, i just dont want to convert things only to find out people dont want to take it that direction.
Just to be clear, we are discussing the DULG wiki, right?
is there any other worth talking about :)
I agree that in the current state the documentation is more a reference but IIRC that wasn't really a conscious design decision. It simply turned out this way in the end.
So I do not see any general problem in adding "guide style" sections in there. Maybe then most of the current documentation can then be shifted to a "commands reference" section.
OK
One problem I see though is how to correctly adapt such sections to the board specific nature of the DULG. Hopefully we can get away with mostly generic text passages and only a few ifdefs. It would be very helpful to know more concrete plans (outline!) to think further about these implications.
Are there any thoughts about this?