Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] drm/i915/gt/selftests: Use drm_* prints in aggregated gt selftests

[Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, 2026-08-28 at 01:38 +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> ...
> 
> > @@ -400,11 +400,10 @@ static int intel_mmio_bases_check(void *arg)
> >  			u32 base = info->mmio_bases[j].base;
> >  
> >  			if (ver >= prev) {
> > -				pr_err("%s(%s, class:%d, instance:%d): mmio base for graphics ver %u is before the one for ver %u\n",
> > -				       __func__,
> > -				       intel_engine_class_repr(info->class),
> > -				       info->class, info->instance,
> > -				       prev, ver);
> > +				drm_err(NULL,
> > +					"%s(%s, class:%d, instance:%d): mmio base for graphics ver %u is before the one for ver %u\n",
> > +					__func__, intel_engine_class_repr(info->class),
> > +					info->class, info->instance, prev, ver);
> 
> yah! drm_err(NULL, ...) is quite pointless. If there is no way
> for retrieving the drm device, then let's just stick to pr_*,
> this is their role.

While I said in one of my comments to 3/5 that I'm not sure if that makes 
sense, maybe it does.  With drm_*(NULL, ...), log messages are still
tagged with [drm] at least.  So as a minimum, in line with my comment to 
1/5, I think commit message of 1/5 that introduces only drm_*(NULL, ...) 
could tell us that we want that [drm] tag even without context, unless we 
don't want it, then prefer to keep pr_*().

Thanks,
Janusz

> 
> Thanks,
> Andi
> 
> >  				return -EINVAL;
> >  			}