On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 12:07:45PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2020-07-13 at 00:24 +0530, Suraj Upadhyay wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 11:16:33AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
Perhaps change the __drm_printk macro to not dereference the drm argument when NULL.
A trivial but perhaps inefficient way might be used like:
drm_<level>(NULL, fmt, ...)
[]
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_print.h b/include/drm/drm_print.h
[]
@@ -395,8 +395,8 @@ void drm_dev_dbg(const struct device *dev, enum drm_debug_category category,
/* Helper for struct drm_device based logging. */ #define __drm_printk(drm, level, type, fmt, ...) \
- dev_##level##type((drm)->dev, "[drm] " fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
- dev_##level##type((drm) ? (drm)->dev : NULL, "[drm] " fmt, \
##__VA_ARGS__)#define drm_info(drm, fmt, ...) \ __drm_printk((drm), info,, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
Hi Joe, Thanks for your input. But I don't think that this change would be a good idea as we are supposed to find or make a substitute of WARN_* macros which take a `condition` as an argument and check for its truth. And I guess passing a NULL to dev_<level> would cause a format warning.
Also, the WARN_* macros are doing their job fine, and passing a NULL value everytime you want to warn about a certain condition at a particular line, doesn't seem good to me.
Thus, I think that WARN_* macros should be untouched.
So do I but the suggestion was not about WARN macros only about drm_<level> macros and possibly unnecessary conversions to dev_<level> when a drm_device context is unavailable.
Also, you don't have to guess, the code is there for you to inspect.
dev_<level> when a NULL is used as the first argument emits "(NULL device *)" instead of dev_driver_string(dev) and dev_name(dev).
See: drivers/base/core.c::__dev_printk()
Yes, Thanks my bad. But the dev_<level> usages in drm/* always have a context and doesn't need NULL to be passed, i.e. some of them have only a `struct device` context which cannot be simply converted into drm_<level> since they take a struct pointer with a `dev` member and not a `dev` itself. What we can convert is calls to dev_<level> with a drm_device context or with a struct pointer which has a dev member.
And, I really want the MAINTAINERS to look into it.
Thanks and Cheers,
Suraj Upadhyay.