From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Reduce object size of DRM_ERROR and DRM_DEBUG uses
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:17:53 -0700
Message-ID: <1521127073.22221.13.camel@perches.com>
References: <016b5cb84cede20fd0f91ed6965421d99fd5f2ce.1520978414.git.joe@perches.com>
         <20180315133026.GR5453@intel.com>
         <1b50f5d8-97a6-2442-34bb-2782c35505fd@linux.intel.com>
         <20180315150524.GS5453@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180315150524.GS5453@intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 17:05 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:04:52PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > Op 15-03-18 om 14:30 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 03:02:15PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > drm_printk is used for both DRM_ERROR and DRM_DEBUG with unnecessary
> > > > arguments that can be removed by creating separate functins.
> > > > 
> > > > Create specific functions for these calls to reduce x86/64 defconfig
> > > > size by ~20k.
> > > > 
> > > > Modify the existing macros to use the specific calls.
> > > > 
> > > > new:
> > > > $ size -t drivers/gpu/drm/built-in.a | tail -1
> > > > 1876562	  44542	    995	1922099	 1d5433	(TOTALS)
> > > > 
> > > > old:
> > > > $ size -t drivers/gpu/drm/built-in.a | tail -1
> > > > 1897565	  44542	    995	1943102	 1da63e	(TOTALS)
> > > > 
> > > > Miscellanea:
> > > > 
> > > > o intel_display requires a change to use the specific calls.
> > > 
> > > How much would we lose if we move the (drm_debug&FOO) outside the
> > > functions again?

again?

> > >  I'm somewhat concerned about all the function call
> > > overhead when debugs aren't even enabled.

Perhaps better to have compilation elimination
of the entire debug output instead.

I think you are discussing a different issue and
this discussion should not block this patch as
this patch has no impact other than code size
reduction.