On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, "Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj" <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Chris, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: 25 February 2020 19:32 >> To: David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxx>; Joonas Lahtinen >> <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj >> <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@xxxxxxxxx>; Vivi, Rodrigo >> <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>; daniel@xxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj >> <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@xxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] drm/i915: Add i915 device based >> MISSING_CASE macro >> >> Quoting Pankaj Bharadiya (2020-02-25 13:47:00) >> > Now that we have struct drm_device based drm_WARN, introduce struct >> > drm_i915_private based i915_MISSING_CASE macro which uses >> drm_WARN so >> > that device specific information will also get printed in backtrace. >> > >> > i915_MISSING_CASE macro should be preferred over MISSING_CASE, >> > wherever possible. >> >> Whatever for? MISSING_CASE() itself should be a complete picture for the >> forgotten code. > > Are you saying, no need to have a new device specific macro? > > We want convert all the calls of WARN* with device specific drm_WARN* > in i915, hence I introduced new i915_MISSING_CASE macro. > > Jani, Will you please share your opinion on this? In general, many or most WARNs are device specific, and the device information is useful. However MISSING_CASE is about the *code*. That was the intent anyway. Perhaps there are cases where the device information might be useful, but for most cases probably not. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
