On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, "Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj" pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@intel.com wrote:
Hi Chris,
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Sent: 25 February 2020 19:32 To: David Airlie airlied@linux.ie; Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com; Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@intel.com; Vivi, Rodrigo rodrigo.vivi@intel.com; daniel@ffwll.ch; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; jani.nikula@linux.intel.com Cc: Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@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?
In general, many or most WARNs are device specific, and the device information is useful. However MISSING_CASE is about the *code*. That was the intent anyway. Perhaps there are cases where the device information might be useful, but for most cases probably not.
BR, Jani.