On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 04:29:35PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > On 10/19/26 04:58, Raag Jadav wrote: > > Currently, drm_dev_wedged_event() logs a basic message of device being > > wedged, but doesn't print the recovery method used by the caller. Log it > > for easier bug report analysis. > > That sounds like a good idea to me.
+1 > > > While at it, as the device wedging is a catastrophic event, raise its log > > level to drm_warn(). > > Device wedging is rarely something catastrophic but rather normal part of > execution handling. > > So I would rather object to that. right, unless it has some option to differentiate the temporary wedge by the cathastrofic one I'd also prefer to keep the info. > > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c > > index cb53baa70995..1a1213f4235c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c > > @@ -598,8 +598,8 @@ int drm_dev_wedged_event(struct drm_device *dev, > > unsigned long method, > > /* Caller is unsure about recovery, do the best we can at this > > point. */ > > snprintf(event_string, sizeof(event_string), "%s", > > "WEDGED=unknown"); > > > > - drm_info(dev, "device wedged, %s\n", method == DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_NONE ? > > - "but no recovery needed" : "needs recovery"); > > + drm_warn(dev, "device wedged with method %#lx, %s\n", method, > > + method == DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_NONE ? "no recovery needed" : > > "needs recovery"); > > > > if (info && (info->comm[0] != '\0') && (info->pid >= 0)) { > > snprintf(pid_string, sizeof(pid_string), "PID=%u", info->pid); >
