On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:59:41AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On pe, 2016-03-18 at 00:18 +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 22:14 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:09:30AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 21:48 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would also like this to be the preferred > > > > > DRM_ERROR reporting mechanism i.e. anytime we emit an ERROR we > > > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > encouraging the user to file a bug, and do so in a user friendly > > > > > fashion. > > > > Ok, but only in i915 I assume. Should we also convert then all > > > > DRM_ERROR to dev_err - with an *ERROR* prefix - or still use > > > > DRM_ERROR? > > > Within i915. I am thinking along the lines that no DRM_ERROR should > > > exist that doesn't acknowlege that it is a user facing error message > > > (i.e. written in plain English and is informative, and includes a bug > > > reporting reference). So i915_report_error() or somesuch. > > Ok, will give it a go. > > Daniel didn't want i915 debugging/erroring mechanisms to deviate from > core DRM. So I guess this would follow in the same category. Too late really. We have key messages for i915 failures now being generted by other subsystems using pr_err/dev_err, which for some strange reason are using the core reporting mechanims not DRM's. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
