From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To:     Siddh Raman Pant <code@siddh.me>
Cc:     maarten lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        maxime ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        thomas zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        david airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        daniel vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        jim cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>,
        sam ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] drm/print: Fix and add support for NULL as first
 argument in drm_* macros
In-Reply-To: <18693900367.2ce71ba5548919.6872574648582795181@siddh.me>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
References: <cover.1677395403.git.code@siddh.me>
 <89f0aa1f26696846c2303527fe4d133bb4ff4bf6.1677395403.git.code@siddh.me>
 <87ilfn30li.fsf@intel.com>
 <18693900367.2ce71ba5548919.6872574648582795181@siddh.me>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 18:02:25 +0200
Message-ID: <878rgj14ha.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Siddh Raman Pant <code@siddh.me> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:13:21 +0530, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> First of all, that's two distinct changes in one patch. The subject says
>> one thing, but it's really two.
>
> Sorry, my bad.
>
>> But the main question is, do we *really* want to let callers pass either
>> struct drm_device * or struct device *? It will be type safe with
>> generics, but if it's okay to use either, people *will* use either. The
>> call sites will end up being a mixture of both. You can't control it. It
>> will be very tedious if you ever want to revert that decision.
>> 
>> Do we want to promote a style where you can pass either? To me, in C
>> context, it seems awfully sloppy and confusing rather than convenient.
>> 
>> I'd argue the struct mipi_dsi_host stuff should use dev_* calls
>> directly, as it's more of a special case, rather than allow struct
>> device * in drm_* logging macros.
>
> I agree. I thought direct dev_* calls would not be ideal, as there is a
> TODO to move away from that, and also incorrectly expected to have more
> such dev ptr problems. But on a second thought, you are correct.
>
> Should I post a new patch, with using __drm_dev_ptr instead and
> removing the __get_dev_ptr generic macro, and using dev_* in
> drm_mipi_dsi.c as `dev_err(dev, "*ERROR* [drm] <msg>", ...);`?

I think commit 1040e424353f ("drm: mipi-dsi: Convert logging to drm_*
functions.") and any similar ones should just be reverted. It worked by
accident. You're supposed to pass struct drm_device * to the drm_*
logging functions, and that passes struct mipi_dsi_host *.

BR,
Jani.


>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>
> Thanks,
> Siddh

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center