Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <251def1c-5577-6b7b-4ebe-4a1feb4687af@siddh.me>
Date:   Wed, 21 Dec 2022 21:27:56 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] drm: Remove usage of deprecated DRM_* macros
Content-Language: en-US, en-GB, hi-IN
To:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
References: <cover.1671566741.git.code@siddh.me>
 <339505f3-9005-df0b-3c73-b54320568db2@suse.de>
From:   Siddh Raman Pant <code@siddh.me>
In-Reply-To: <339505f3-9005-df0b-3c73-b54320568db2@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 21 2022 at 14:46:12 +0530, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Am 20.12.22 um 21:16 schrieb Siddh Raman Pant:
>> This patchset aims to remove usages of deprecated DRM_* macros from the
>> files residing in drivers/gpu/drm root.
>>
>> In process, I found out that NULL as first argument of drm_dbg_* wasn't
>> working, but it was listed as the alternative in deprecation comment,
>> so I fixed that before removing usages of DRM_DEBUG_* macros.
>>
>> This patchset should be applied in order as changes might be dependent.
>>
>> Please review and let me know if any errors are there, and hopefully
>> this gets accepted.
> 
> Thanks for the patchset. Overall this looks fine.
> 
> But the use of pr_() functions is not optimal in my opinion. I know that
> I recommended using it, but at a closer look, I think we might want to
> reconsider that. I wouldn't like losing the '[drm]' tag, but adding them
> to each pr_() call isn't a good idea either.
> 
> I think it would be nicer to replace DRM_INFO with drm_info(NULL, ).
> Depending on the device being NULL, the helpers would select dev-based
> messages or printk-based messages. It would then work like drm_dbg_().
> But it needs some additional changes.
> 
> Can you first move all pr_() related changes into a new patchset? The
> trivial conversion were the device is known and not NULL can remain in
> this patchset and be merged soon. We can afterwards have a separate
> discussion for the changes that currently involve pr_().
> 
> Best regards
> Thomas

Maybe I can just cope for NULL in __drm_printk and change all pr_*()
changes in this patchset to the appropriate ones.

Something like:
#define __drm_printk(drm, level, type, fmt, ...)				\
({										\
	drm_ = __drm_print_dev(drm);						\
	if (drm_)								\
		dev_##level##type((drm_)->dev, "[drm] " fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);	\
	else									\
		pr_##level##type("[drm] " fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);			\
})

Thanks,
Siddh