Re: [PATCH 01/12] drm/i915: Indicate which pipe failed the fastset check overall

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 05:35:51PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 04:57:58PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 04:46:12PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:

...

> >> > I think the proper solution would be to have actually
> >> > sensible conversion specifiers in the format string.
> >> > So instead of %<set of random characters> we'd have something
> >> > more like %{drm_crtc} (or whatever color you want to throw
> >> > on that particular bikeshed).
> >> 
> >> Personally I suck at remembering even the standard printf conversion
> >> specifiers, let alone all the kernel extensions. I basically have to
> >> look them up every time. I'd really love some %{name} format for named
> >> pointer things. And indeed preferrably without the %p. Just %{name}.
> >
> > It will become something like %{name[:subextensions]}, where subextensions
> > is what we now have with different letters/numbers after %pX (X is a letter
> > which you proposed to have written as name AFAIU).
> 
> Thanks, I appreciate it, a lot!

Oh, I meant "can" rather than "will".

> But could you perhaps try to go with just clean %{name} only instead of
> adding [:subextensions] right away, please?
> 
> I presume the suggestion comes from an implementation detail, and I
> guess it would be handy to reuse the current implementation for
> subextension.
> 
> For example, %pb -> %{bitmap} and %pbl -> %{bitmap:l}. But really I
> think the better option would be for the latter to become, say,
> %{bitmap-list}. The goal here is to make them easy to remember and
> understand, without resorting to looking up the documentation!

Okay, so it seems you have something in mind, perhaps you can submit a draft
of the list of those "names"?

> >> And then we could discuss adding support for drm specific things. I
> >> guess one downside is that the functions to do this would have to be in
> >> vsprintf.c instead of drm. Unless we add some code in drm for this
> >> that's always built-in.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko