Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Apr 2022 11:23:20 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/nvdla: Add driver support for NVDLA | From | Christian König <> |
| |
Am 21.04.22 um 11:13 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann: > Hi > > Am 21.04.22 um 10:34 schrieb Christian König: >> Am 21.04.22 um 10:30 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann: >>> (Resending, as some MLs didn't like the size of the origninal mail.) >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> thanks for your submission. Some general comments: >>> >>> * some functions are prefixed with dla_, others use nvdla_. It >>> seems arbitrary to me. Please use nvdla_ consistently throughout the >>> source code. >>> >>> * For reporting errors, please use drm_err(), drm_warn(), etc. I >>> suggest to rearrange the error messages to not be located in the >>> innermost functions. >> >> If you plan to have multiple instances of the driver loaded at the >> same time, using drm_dev_err(), drm_dev_warn() etc.. would be even >> better. > > I thought that these functions exist, but looking for them now I > cannot find them. The macros DRM_DEV_ERR(), etc are deprecated.
That's what I meant with the comment below.
I wasn't 100%, but dev_err() etc.. seems to now be the preferred form since that allows filtering for log messages of a certain device.
Regards, Christian.
> >> >> BTW: I'm still absolutely not keen to enforcing drm_* log functions. >> So if you prefer to stick with pr_err() and dev_err() we could >> discuss that once more. >> >> Regards, >> Christian. >> >>> >>> * Could you please split this patch into smaller pieces? It >>> currently hits size limits of some mailing lists. Maybe add the >>> register constants separately. >>> >>> Please find more review comments below. It's not a full review, but >>> at least something to start with. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Thomas >> >
| |