[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 0/19] drm/panel: drmP.h removal and DRM_DEV*
On Fri, 01 Feb 2019, Sam Ravnborg <> wrote:
> Hi Thierry.
>> I personally like the DRM_DEV_* variants better because of the
>> additional information that they provide. That can be useful when
>> grepping logs etc.
>> I'm slightly on the fence about this patch. The unwritten, and
>> admittedly fuzzy, rules that I've been using so far are that dev_*() are
>> used or messages that have to do with the panel device itself, whereas
>> DRM_* variants are used for things that are actually related to DRM. So
>> typically this would mean that roughly everything in ->probe() or
>> ->remove() would be dev_*(), while the rest would be DRM_DEV_*().
> For a rookie like me it is much simpler if one can use the same
> logging primitives all over or at least the rules when to use what is simple.
> It is simple to say that everything that exists below drivers/gpu/drm/
> relates to drm.
> Suggested set of rules to follow:
> - If in drm core, use DRM_XXX where XXX represent the core functionality
> - If in a driver use DRM_DEV* if a struct device is available
> - If in a driver and no struct device, use plain DRM_ERROR/INFO

Core and drivers are already pretty conflated:


Side note, I'd like to switch i915 to dev based debugs, but I absolutely
hate the idea of changing:



DRM_DEV_DEBUG_KMS(dev_priv->, "...")

I think the dev based macros are way too long, and would serve *most*
(though not all) drivers better by having struct drm_device * rather
than struct device * as the first param. In the above, just the
boilerplate consumes half the line.

Basically I'd like to see drm_ prefixed analogues to all the dev_ based
logging functions, e.g. drm_dbg that takes drm_device. But it's so much
churn that I'm contemplating just making i915 specific wrappers
instead. :(


> If there is a need to distingush before/after one has a drm_device,
> the best way would be to have a set of logging primitives that
> take a drm_device. So we could extend the rule set:
> - If in a driver use DRM_DRM* if a struct drm_device is available
> (This rule would take precedence over a struct device)
> DRM_DRM*, or DRM_DDEV* or ... But you get the idea.
> But this is not where we are today.
> Shall I redo the patch-set so we go back to dev_*() in probe() / remove()?
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list

Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-01 11:28    [W:0.118 / U:7.880 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site