Hi Daniel. > > > > > > I'd replace the entire block with a "This stuff is deprecated" warning. We > > > have at least a corresponding todo.rst entry. > > > > We have many situations where no drm_device is available. > > At least when you a buried in drm_panel patches. > > > > So it is either DRM_DEV_ERROR() or drv_err(). > > Which is why I have pushed for nicer drm_ variants of these... > > Huh, drm_panel indeed has no drm_device. And I guess we don't have a > convenient excuse to add it ... > > > The todo entry only covers the nice new macros that Jani added > > where we have a drm_device. > > I wonder whether for those cases we shouldn't just directly use the > various dev_* macros? We would miss the nice [drm] marker in the logging. So [drm] will be added by the drivers and the core - but not the panels. That is the only drawback I see right now. Which was enough justification for me to add the drm_dev_ variants. Feel free to convince me that this is not justification to add these variants. In drm/panel/* there is no use of DRM_DEBUG* - and there is no reason to introduce the variants we can filer with drm.debug. There is a single DRM_DEBUG() user, which does not count here. We could introduce only: drm_dev_(err|warn|info|debug) - and not the more specialized variants. Then we avoid that people make shortcuts and use drm_dev_dbg_kms() when they are supposed to use drm_dbg_kms(). This was one of the very valid argumest against the patch that introduced all the drm_dev_* variants. Sam _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
