Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] drm/i915/gt/selftests: Use drm_* prints in aggregated gt selftests

[Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>]

Hi Krzysztof,

> > > > > > While reviewing everything I was thinking whether it would make
> > > > > > sense to add an i915_err() like xe and gt.
> > > > > The idea makes sense, the question is when to introduce this
> > > > > macro. I have the v4 pretty much ready to send, apart from a few
> > > > > minor issues I have to fix, but I am not against modifying it to
> > > > > accomodate i915_* family of prints.
> > > > > If we agreed on this, then we'd have this new macro ready when
> > > > > we'd be replacing pr_* prints in other parts of the driver.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think it would be worth to keep the series in the oven for a
> > > > > few more days, especially when it is not that critical of a
> > > > > change. What do you think?
> > > > 
> > > > yes, i915_* can come later, of course, it's out of the scope of
> > > > this series.
> > > > 
> > > > Andi
> > > 
> > > I checked again and again these past two weeks for your reply
> > > and none came into my inbox, only for me to notice today that it
> > > was finally pulled by my mailer client recently. I posted
> > > another version of this series, because I was under the
> > > impression that silence meant I should introduce the i915_*
> > > prints. That version was met with disapproval from Jani as well,
> > > so please just ignore v4.
> > > Sorry for the spam.
> > 
> > it's also true that I haven't been very active in reviews lately.
> > 
> > Are you now preparing a v5?
> Truth be told, I prepared two versions simultaneously while
> waiting for reviews on v3: one with and one without i915_*
> prints, both addressing earlier reviews. I updated the local
> version without i915_*, so it is pretty much ready to send, just
> need to run final checks.

cool! I'll wait for the v5, then :-)

Andi