Hi Chris, > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Sent: 25 February 2020 19:32 > To: David Airlie <airl...@linux.ie>; Joonas Lahtinen > <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>; Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj > <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharad...@intel.com>; Vivi, Rodrigo > <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>; dan...@ffwll.ch; dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org; > intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; jani.nik...@linux.intel.com > Cc: Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj > <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharad...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx][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? Thanks, Pankaj > -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
