On Fri, 01 Feb 2019, Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20181227162310.13023-1-jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx --- Side note, I'd like to switch i915 to dev based debugs, but I absolutely hate the idea of changing: DRM_DEBUG_KMS("...") to: DRM_DEV_DEBUG_KMS(dev_priv->drm.dev, "...") 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. :( BR, Jani. > > 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 > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
