From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/19] drm/panel: drmP.h removal and DRM_DEV*
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:03:12 +0100
Message-ID: <20190131210312.GA8947@ravnborg.org>
References: <20190131192619.9763-1-sam@ravnborg.org>
 <20190131200723.GZ114153@art_vandelay>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190131200723.GZ114153@art_vandelay>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Stefan Mavrodiev <stefan@olimex.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

Hi Sean.

> Hey Sam,
> Thanks for the patchset, this will make dmesg grepping easier! One comment, and
> you're going to hate me for it: Why use DRM_DEV* instead of DRM_*?
> 
> When I introduced DRM_DEV, it was to cover the case where there are multiple
> instances of the same driver (ie: dual-channel mipi, multiple crtcs, etc). I
> suppose that _could_ happen in the panel space, but it seems more unlikely than
> not.

The rationale for using DRM_DEV* are solely that if a struct device * is avalible,
then we can use this to provide more information about the origin of the logging.

I have not testet it - but from browsing the code I could not see that
DRM_ERROR and friends picked up the module name.
If DRM_ERROR is the right choice I will redo the patches - no problem.

But if we loose the module name then the DRM_DEV* variants are preferable IMO.

Note: I missed DRM_DEV_WARN(), so I left one dev_warn() in the code.

	Sam