On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae at samsung.com> wrote: > 2014-03-25 0:53 GMT+09:00 Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau at intel.com>: >> As patch 8/11 explains, I noticed that we where evaluating the arguments to >> drm_ut_debug_printk() even when drm.debug was 0, doing some work for no good >> reason. By pulling the test on drm_debug before calling >> drm_ut_debug_printk(), >> we skip those instructions that only need to be executed when logging is on. >> >> The remaining patches are bonus clean-ups, with the main goal of removing >> DRM_LOG* macros that are not really used throughout the code base. After >> that, >> it's possible to simplify a bit drm_ut_debug_printk(). All pretty >> straightforward cleanups, but still worthwhile IMHO. >> >> For driver-specific patches (why some of you are Cced in that series), I'd >> love >> if you could take the time to throw a Acked-by/Reviewed-by tag. Also, do you >> have any objection if the driver specific patch go through the DRM tree? >> should people judge that series worthwhile, of course. > All pulled into -next, thanks,
Dave.
