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
