Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Tune down init error message due to failure injection

[Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>]

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 10:59 +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On pe, 2016-03-18 at 00:18 +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 22:14 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:09:30AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 21:48 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would also like this to be the preferred
> > > > > DRM_ERROR reporting mechanism i.e. anytime we emit an ERROR
> > > > > we
> > > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > encouraging the user to file a bug, and do so in a user
> > > > > friendly
> > > > > fashion.
> > > > Ok, but only in i915 I assume. Should we also convert then all
> > > > DRM_ERROR to dev_err - with an *ERROR* prefix - or still use
> > > > DRM_ERROR?
> > > Within i915. I am thinking along the lines that no DRM_ERROR
> > > should
> > > exist that doesn't acknowlege that it is a user facing error
> > > message
> > > (i.e. written in plain English and is informative, and includes a
> > > bug
> > > reporting reference). So i915_report_error() or somesuch.
> > Ok, will give it a go.
> 
> Daniel didn't want i915 debugging/erroring mechanisms to deviate from
> core DRM. So I guess this would follow in the same category.
> 
> I'm all in for structuring a coherent debugging/error message logic
> and
> functions for it and then everyone can follow the suit.

The dev_err/dbg method has obvious advantages, like dynamic debug or
showing the device instance, so I think that's something we want in any
case. I don't see a problem with first rolling it out in i915 then
proposing it for more generic use.

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