Re: [PATCH 09/13] drm/i915/skl: Use MISSING_CASE() in skl_wrpll_params_populate()

From: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
To: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>
Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] drm/i915/skl: Use MISSING_CASE() in skl_wrpll_params_populate()
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:42:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150603124224.GA10702@strange.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+gsUGSY4Mmj-x+XgztfpsqcF9ttaNt4c6gtjdAOEKZxpdvh+A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:06:57AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-05-28 4:51 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 03:40:32PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >> 2015-05-07 14:38 GMT-03:00 Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>:
> >> > We now have a special macro for those cases.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if this patch is an improvement. Before it, we always
> >> knew which "switch" statement was bad since we used to print either
> >> "PDiv" or "KDiv". After the patch, it will not be possible to know
> >> from which switch statement the error came from. Of course, there's
> >> the advantage of at least knowing the value. I'd vote to either skip
> >> this patch, or improve the MISSING_CASE macro to be able to account
> >> for multiple uses on the same function. But I'm open to arugmentation
> >> :)
> >
> > MISSING_CASE is a WARN, which also prints the line number. Not enough?
> 
> Line numbers are not very useful unless you're absolutely sure which
> tree/commit someone is running. And it still takes a lot of work to
> checkout the correct tree/commit and discover which of the WARNs is on
> that specific line.

Life is too short, let's drop this patch.

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