On 01.02.2019 11:30, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 01 Feb 2019, Sam Ravnborg <s...@ravnborg.org> wrote: >> Hi Thierry. >> >>> I personally like the DRM_DEV_* variants better because of the >>> additional information that they provide. That can be useful when >>> grepping logs etc. >>> >>> I'm slightly on the fence about this patch. The unwritten, and >>> admittedly fuzzy, rules that I've been using so far are that dev_*() are >>> used or messages that have to do with the panel device itself, whereas >>> DRM_* variants are used for things that are actually related to DRM. So >>> typically this would mean that roughly everything in ->probe() or >>> ->remove() would be dev_*(), while the rest would be DRM_DEV_*(). >> For a rookie like me it is much simpler if one can use the same >> logging primitives all over or at least the rules when to use what is simple. >> It is simple to say that everything that exists below drivers/gpu/drm/ >> relates to drm. >> >> Suggested set of rules to follow: >> - If in drm core, use DRM_XXX where XXX represent the core functionality >> - If in a driver use DRM_DEV* if a struct device is available >> - If in a driver and no struct device, use plain DRM_ERROR/INFO > Core and drivers are already pretty conflated: > > http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20181227162310.13023-1-jani.nik...@intel.com > > --- > > Side note, I'd like to switch i915 to dev based debugs, but I absolutely > hate the idea of changing: > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("...") > > to: > > DRM_DEV_DEBUG_KMS(dev_priv->drm.dev, "...") > > I think the dev based macros are way too long, and would serve *most* > (though not all) drivers better by having struct drm_device * rather > than struct device * as the first param. In the above, just the > boilerplate consumes half the line. > > Basically I'd like to see drm_ prefixed analogues to all the dev_ based > logging functions, e.g. drm_dbg that takes drm_device. But it's so much > churn that I'm contemplating just making i915 specific wrappers > instead. :(
Does it means I am the only one who is not convinced to use all these DRM_DEV helpers. For me classic dev_(err|...) looks fine, if we really want to emphasize that logs comes from DRM dev_* allows format modification, sth like this: #define dev_fmt(fmt) "DRM: %s:%d: " fmt, __func__, __LINE__ but it is still something I do not see very helpful. In general I think we have too many alternatives/flavours and developers do not know what to choose, current usage of all these DRM_* shows it clearly. Regards Andrzej > > BR, > Jani. > > > > >> If there is a need to distingush before/after one has a drm_device, >> the best way would be to have a set of logging primitives that >> take a drm_device. So we could extend the rule set: >> - If in a driver use DRM_DRM* if a struct drm_device is available >> (This rule would take precedence over a struct device) >> >> DRM_DRM*, or DRM_DDEV* or ... But you get the idea. >> >> But this is not where we are today. >> >> Shall I redo the patch-set so we go back to dev_*() in probe() / remove()? >> >> Sam >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
