On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:03:15AM GMT, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > > > On 7/10/2024 12:40 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 22:39, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/9/2024 6:48 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > DPU debugging macros need to be converted to a proper drm_debug_* > > > > macros, however this is a going an intrusive patch, not suitable for a > > > > fix. Wire DPU_DEBUG and DPU_DEBUG_DRIVER to always use DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER > > > > to make sure that DPU debugging messages always end up in the drm debug > > > > messages and are controlled via the usual drm.debug mask. > > > > > > > > > > These macros have been deprecated, is this waht you meant by the > > > conversion to proper drm_debug_*? > > > > Yes. Drop the driver-specific wrappers where they don't make sense. > > Use sensible format strings in the cases where it actually does (like > > VIDENC or _PLANE) > > > > Ack but we need to not just drop the wrappers but drop the usage of these > macros as well because it is documented that they are deprecated. > > So I assume you want to get this in and do that as a follow up change? Yes, somewhere in the long list of cleanups. I have a similar item against DP driver, which uses correct macros, > > > /* NOTE: this is deprecated in favor of drm_dbg(NULL, ...). */ > > > #define DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER(fmt, ...) \ > > > __drm_dbg(DRM_UT_DRIVER, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > > > > I think all that this macro was doing was to have appropriate DRM_UT_* > > > macros enabled before calling the corresponding DRM_DEBUG_* macros. But > > > I think what was incorrect here is for DPU_DEBUG, we could have used > > > DRM_UT_CORE instead of DRM_UT_KMS. > > > > It pretty much tries to overplay the existing drm debugging mechanism > > by either sending the messages to the DRM channel or just using > > pr_debug. With DYNAMIC_DEBUG being disabled pr_debug is just an empty > > macro, so all the messages can end up in /dev/null. We should not be > > trying to be too smart, using standard DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER should be > > enough. This way all driver-related messages are controlled by > > drm.debug including or excluding the 0x02 bit. > > > > > > > > > > And DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER should have been used instead of DRM_ERROR. > > > > > > Was this causing the issue of the prints not getting enabled? > > > > I pretty much think so. > > > > Alright, I am okay with the approach, just one minor suggestion, to keep the > behavior intact, previously the code wanted DPU_DEBUG to be controlled by > DRM_UT_KMS and DPU_DEBUG_DRIVER controlled by DRM_UT_DRIVER. > > Keeping that intact, we need to use DRM_DEBUG_KMS for DPU_DEBUG? I might make that more explicit: I don't think that it is a good idea for a generic DPU_DEBUG macro to be tied to DRM_UT_KMS. We are reporting a debug message from driver, so by default it should go to the DRM_UT_DRIVER channel. While refactoring things we might end up with messages going to ATOMIC or KMS, but DRIVER should be the default. -- With best wishes Dmitry
