Re: [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Eric,

On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile:
> > >>   CC [M]  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o
> > >> 
> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c: In function
> > >> ‘drm_atomic_plane_print_state’:
> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c:920:5: error: too few arguments to
> > >> function ‘drm_get_format_name’> >> 
> > >>      drm_get_format_name(fb->pixel_format));
> > >>      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> 
> > >> In file included from ./include/drm/drmP.h:71:0,
> > >> 
> > >>                  from drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c:29:
> > >> ./include/drm/drm_fourcc.h:65:7: note: declared here
> > >> 
> > >>  char *drm_get_format_name(uint32_t format, struct drm_format_name_buf
> > >>  *buf);> >>  
> > >>        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> 
> > >> Can you pls rebase onto drm-misc or linux-next or something?
> > > 
> > > That was based on airlied/drm-next (last fetched on Sunday I think),
> > > I can rebase it on drm-misc if it helps, but it seems older than
> > > drm-next. Should I just rebase on top of current head of drm-next?
> > 
> > It needs to be drm-misc (linux-next doesn't have it yet) due to the
> > new atomic debug work that we just landed. I'm working on drm-tip as a
> > drm local integration tree to ease pains like these a bit, but that
> > doesn't really exist yet.
> 
> I'm confused as to how the different trees and branches merge back to
> Torvalds' tree (I'm interested in particular in drm), and I'm not sure
> which branch you want me to rebase on in the drm-misc tree [1],
> especially since all of them are older than drm-next [2].
> 
> I'll try to rebase on drm-misc-fixes (currently at 4da5caa6a6f82cda3193)
> as it sounds about right, but it doesn't apply at all, so it'll take
> a little while.

While at it, could you make the function return a const char * ?

By the way, while this is an improvement over the current situation in that it 
fixes the missing kfree() issue, I wonder whether the problem we're trying to 
solve should be addressed at a more global level.

The issue here is that printk can't format the fourcc as a string by itself. 
There's a bunch of places in the kernel where a similar formatting problem 
occurs. In a few occasions it has been solved by extending printk with 
additional format specifiers (such as for MAC/IP addresses, GUIDs, various 
kind of device names, ...). DRM fourccs are probably too DRM specific to be 
worth a format specifier, but I wonder whether we could introduce a new 
specifier that takes a function pointer as a formatting helper. Another 
similarly crazy option would be a format specifier for strings that would free 
the passed pointer after printing it.

> Could you give me a quick explanation or point me to a doc/page that
> explains how the various trees and branches get merged?
> I googled a bit and found this doc [4] by Jani, but it doesn't mention
> drm-misc for instance, so I'm not sure how up-to-date and
> non-intel-specific it is.
> 
> Looking at this page, something just occurred to me: did you mean
> drm-fixes [3], instead of one of the branches on drm-misc?
> 
> Cheers,
>   Eric
> 
> [1] git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc
> [2] git://people.freedesktop.org/~airlied/linux drm-next
> [2] git://people.freedesktop.org/~airlied/linux drm-fixes
> [3] https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-intel.html

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx