On Fri, 01 Feb 2019, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01.02.2019 11:30, Jani Nikula wrote: >> 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. :( > > > Does it means I am the only one who is not convinced to use all these > DRM_DEV helpers. > > For me classic dev_(err|...) looks fine, if we really want to emphasize > that logs comes from DRM dev_* allows format modification, sth like this: > > #define dev_fmt(fmt) "DRM: %s:%d: " fmt, __func__, __LINE__ > > but it is still something I do not see very helpful. dev_dbg has all the fancy dynamic debug stuff, but no way to filter by category the way drm.debug bitmask allows. BR, Jani. > > > In general I think we have too many alternatives/flavours and developers > do not know what to choose, current usage of all these DRM_* shows it > clearly. > > > Regards > > Andrzej > > > >> >> 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
