Hi John, ... > > > if (intf_id >= INTEL_GSC_NUM_INTERFACES) { > > > - drm_warn_once(>->i915->drm, "GSC irq: intf_id %d is out of range", intf_id); > > > + gt_warn_once(gt, "GSC irq: intf_id %d is out of range", intf_id); > > > return; > > > } > > > if (!HAS_HECI_GSC(gt->i915)) { > > > - drm_warn_once(>->i915->drm, "GSC irq: not supported"); > > > + gt_warn_once(gt, "GSC irq: not supported"); > > > return; > > > } > > > @@ -300,7 +301,7 @@ static void gsc_irq_handler(struct intel_gt *gt, unsigned int intf_id) > > > ret = generic_handle_irq(gt->gsc.intf[intf_id].irq); > > > if (ret) > > > - drm_err_ratelimited(>->i915->drm, "error handling GSC irq: %d\n", ret); > > > + gt_err_ratelimited(gt, "error handling GSC irq: %d\n", ret); > > > } > > > void intel_gsc_irq_handler(struct intel_gt *gt, u32 iir) > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_print.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_print.h > > > index 55a336a9ff061..7fdc78c79273e 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_print.h > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_print.h > > > @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ > > > #define gt_warn(_gt, _fmt, ...) \ > > > drm_warn(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > +#define gt_warn_once(_gt, _fmt, ...) \ > > > + drm_warn_once(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > + > > I would add the gt_warn_once() part in a different patch. > But this is the patch that uses it. You should not add dead code. The only > exception being if it is something large and complex that needs to be added > in stages for ease of code review. But this really doesn't count as large or > complex! I wouldn't call it dead code if it's used right after... you could also put all the *_warn_* changes in different patch. Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion for such a straight forward patch, so that I'm fine with it as it is: Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Andi