On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:13:21 +0530, Jani Nikula wrote: > First of all, that's two distinct changes in one patch. The subject says > one thing, but it's really two. Sorry, my bad. > But the main question is, do we *really* want to let callers pass either > struct drm_device * or struct device *? It will be type safe with > generics, but if it's okay to use either, people *will* use either. The > call sites will end up being a mixture of both. You can't control it. It > will be very tedious if you ever want to revert that decision. > > Do we want to promote a style where you can pass either? To me, in C > context, it seems awfully sloppy and confusing rather than convenient. > > I'd argue the struct mipi_dsi_host stuff should use dev_* calls > directly, as it's more of a special case, rather than allow struct > device * in drm_* logging macros. I agree. I thought direct dev_* calls would not be ideal, as there is a TODO to move away from that, and also incorrectly expected to have more such dev ptr problems. But on a second thought, you are correct. Should I post a new patch, with using __drm_dev_ptr instead and removing the __get_dev_ptr generic macro, and using dev_* in drm_mipi_dsi.c as `dev_err(dev, "*ERROR* [drm] <msg>", ...);`? > BR, > Jani. Thanks, Siddh
