Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE

2016-09-27 Thread Sean Paul 
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Emil Velikov  wrote:
> On 27 September 2016 at 17:43, Joe Perches  wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 17:36 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 27 September 2016 at 17:04, Joe Perches  wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
>>> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches  wrote:
>>> > > > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels
>>> > > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
>>> > > WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
>>> > > to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.
>>> > There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency.
>>> DRM_WARN is to DRM_WARNING like DRM_INFO is to DRM_INFORMATION and
>>> DRM_NOTE is to DRM_NOTICE...
>>
>> DRM_INFORMATION doesn't exist in the kernel tree.
>>
>>> is what I'm thinking and seemingly so
>>> does Sean. Fwiw that part seem cosmetic/unrelated to the rest of the
>>> patch, so it might be worth keeping separate ?
>>
>> To me, simplifying the macro means using the common kernel
>> macro forms.
>>
> "unify" might be better, but I agree.
>
> Either way there's no point in elaborating on the point me(Sean?)
> meant since it's just going to get shoot down like a dog ;-)

Yeah, I can see both sides, and I suppose I don't really care either
way. Given that DRM_NOTE/NOTICE is only used 7 places (in one file), I
doubt there are going to be any strong feelings.

Sean

>
> Regards,
> Emil
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE

2016-09-27 Thread Joe Perches 
On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 17:36 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 27 September 2016 at 17:04, Joe Perches  wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches  wrote:
> > > > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels
> > > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
> > > WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
> > > to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.
> > There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency.
> DRM_WARN is to DRM_WARNING like DRM_INFO is to DRM_INFORMATION and
> DRM_NOTE is to DRM_NOTICE...

DRM_INFORMATION doesn't exist in the kernel tree.

> is what I'm thinking and seemingly so
> does Sean. Fwiw that part seem cosmetic/unrelated to the rest of the
> patch, so it might be worth keeping separate ?

To me, simplifying the macro means using the common kernel
macro forms.

___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE

2016-09-27 Thread Emil Velikov 
On 27 September 2016 at 17:43, Joe Perches  wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 17:36 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 27 September 2016 at 17:04, Joe Perches  wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches  wrote:
>> > > > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels
>> > > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
>> > > WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
>> > > to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.
>> > There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency.
>> DRM_WARN is to DRM_WARNING like DRM_INFO is to DRM_INFORMATION and
>> DRM_NOTE is to DRM_NOTICE...
>
> DRM_INFORMATION doesn't exist in the kernel tree.
>
>> is what I'm thinking and seemingly so
>> does Sean. Fwiw that part seem cosmetic/unrelated to the rest of the
>> patch, so it might be worth keeping separate ?
>
> To me, simplifying the macro means using the common kernel
> macro forms.
>
"unify" might be better, but I agree.

Either way there's no point in elaborating on the point me(Sean?)
meant since it's just going to get shoot down like a dog ;-)

Regards,
Emil
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE

2016-09-27 Thread Joe Perches 
On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 17:36 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 27 September 2016 at 17:04, Joe Perches  wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches  wrote:
> > > > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels
> > > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
> > > WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
> > > to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.
> > There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency.
> DRM_WARN is to DRM_WARNING like DRM_INFO is to DRM_INFORMATION and
> DRM_NOTE is to DRM_NOTICE...

DRM_INFORMATION doesn't exist in the kernel tree.

> is what I'm thinking and seemingly so
> does Sean. Fwiw that part seem cosmetic/unrelated to the rest of the
> patch, so it might be worth keeping separate ?

To me, simplifying the macro means using the common kernel
macro forms.

___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE

2016-09-27 Thread Emil Velikov 
On 27 September 2016 at 17:04, Joe Perches  wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches  wrote:
>> > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels
>> > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
>> WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
>> to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.
>
> There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency.
>
DRM_WARN is to DRM_WARNING like DRM_INFO is to DRM_INFORMATION and
DRM_NOTE is to DRM_NOTICE... is what I'm thinking and seemingly so
does Sean. Fwiw that part seem cosmetic/unrelated to the rest of the
patch, so it might be worth keeping separate ?

-Emil
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE

2016-09-27 Thread Joe Perches 
On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 11:58 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches  wrote:
> > Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels
> > I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
> WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
> to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.

There is no DRM_WARN inconsistency.

What is used is pr_warn and dev_warn, not pr_warning and dev_warning

Well, there are still a few pr_warning uses, but those
will eventually be removed/converted.

___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE

2016-09-27 Thread Sean Paul 
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Joe Perches  wrote:
> Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels

I'm not convinced this is worth doing if we're going to keep the
WARN/WARNING discrepancy, and I don't think we should switch DRM_WARN
to DRM_WARNING since it's so widely used.

Sean

> without
> using macro argument concatenation.
>
> Miscellanea:
>
> o Single statement macros don't need do {} while (0)
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches 
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c | 22 --
>  include/drm/drmP.h  | 26 +-
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
> index 6fd39efb7894..bc4f9895f356 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
> @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
> else if (err == 0)
> DRM_INFO("GuC firmware load skipped\n");
> else if (ret != -EIO)
> -   DRM_NOTE("GuC firmware load failed: %d\n", err);
> +   DRM_NOTICE("GuC firmware load failed: %d\n", err);
> else
> DRM_WARN("GuC firmware load failed: %d\n", err);
>
> @@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
> if (fw_path == NULL)
> DRM_INFO("GuC submission without firmware not 
> supported\n");
> if (ret == 0)
> -   DRM_NOTE("Falling back from GuC submission to 
> execlist mode\n");
> +   DRM_NOTICE("Falling back from GuC submission to 
> execlist mode\n");
> else
> DRM_ERROR("GuC init failed: %d\n", ret);
> }
> @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
> intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
>
> /* Check the size of the blob before examining buffer contents */
> if (fw->size < sizeof(struct guc_css_header)) {
> -   DRM_NOTE("Firmware header is missing\n");
> +   DRM_NOTICE("Firmware header is missing\n");
> goto fail;
> }
>
> @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
> intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
> css->key_size_dw - css->exponent_size_dw) * sizeof(u32);
>
> if (guc_fw->header_size != sizeof(struct guc_css_header)) {
> -   DRM_NOTE("CSS header definition mismatch\n");
> +   DRM_NOTICE("CSS header definition mismatch\n");
> goto fail;
> }
>
> @@ -628,7 +628,7 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
> intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
>
> /* now RSA */
> if (css->key_size_dw != UOS_RSA_SCRATCH_MAX_COUNT) {
> -   DRM_NOTE("RSA key size is bad\n");
> +   DRM_NOTICE("RSA key size is bad\n");
> goto fail;
> }
> guc_fw->rsa_offset = guc_fw->ucode_offset + guc_fw->ucode_size;
> @@ -637,14 +637,14 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
> intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
> /* At least, it should have header, uCode and RSA. Size of all three. 
> */
> size = guc_fw->header_size + guc_fw->ucode_size + guc_fw->rsa_size;
> if (fw->size < size) {
> -   DRM_NOTE("Missing firmware components\n");
> +   DRM_NOTICE("Missing firmware components\n");
> goto fail;
> }
>
> /* Header and uCode will be loaded to WOPCM. Size of the two. */
> size = guc_fw->header_size + guc_fw->ucode_size;
> if (size > guc_wopcm_size(to_i915(dev))) {
> -   DRM_NOTE("Firmware is too large to fit in WOPCM\n");
> +   DRM_NOTICE("Firmware is too large to fit in WOPCM\n");
> goto fail;
> }
>
> @@ -659,9 +659,11 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
> intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
>
> if (guc_fw->guc_fw_major_found != guc_fw->guc_fw_major_wanted ||
> guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_found < guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_wanted) {
> -   DRM_NOTE("GuC firmware version %d.%d, required %d.%d\n",
> -   guc_fw->guc_fw_major_found, 
> guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_found,
> -   guc_fw->guc_fw_major_wanted, 
> guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_wanted);
> +   DRM_NOTICE("GuC firmware version %d.%d, required %d.%d\n",
> +  guc_fw->guc_fw_major_found,
> +  guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_found,
> +  guc_fw->guc_fw_major_wanted,
> +  guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_wanted);
> err = -ENOEXEC;
> goto fail;
> }
> diff --git a/include/drm/drmP.h b/include/drm/drmP.h
> index c53dc90942e0..95cd04aa9bf7 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drmP.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drmP.h
> @@ -168,25 +168,25

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Simplify logging macros, convert DRM_NOTE to DRM_NOTICE

2016-09-25 Thread Joe Perches 
Use a bit more consistent style with kernel loglevels without
using macro argument concatenation.

Miscellanea:

o Single statement macros don't need do {} while (0)

Signed-off-by: Joe Perches 
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c | 22 --
 include/drm/drmP.h  | 26 +-
 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
index 6fd39efb7894..bc4f9895f356 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
@@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
else if (err == 0)
DRM_INFO("GuC firmware load skipped\n");
else if (ret != -EIO)
-   DRM_NOTE("GuC firmware load failed: %d\n", err);
+   DRM_NOTICE("GuC firmware load failed: %d\n", err);
else
DRM_WARN("GuC firmware load failed: %d\n", err);
 
@@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ int intel_guc_setup(struct drm_device *dev)
if (fw_path == NULL)
DRM_INFO("GuC submission without firmware not 
supported\n");
if (ret == 0)
-   DRM_NOTE("Falling back from GuC submission to execlist 
mode\n");
+   DRM_NOTICE("Falling back from GuC submission to 
execlist mode\n");
else
DRM_ERROR("GuC init failed: %d\n", ret);
}
@@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
 
/* Check the size of the blob before examining buffer contents */
if (fw->size < sizeof(struct guc_css_header)) {
-   DRM_NOTE("Firmware header is missing\n");
+   DRM_NOTICE("Firmware header is missing\n");
goto fail;
}
 
@@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
css->key_size_dw - css->exponent_size_dw) * sizeof(u32);
 
if (guc_fw->header_size != sizeof(struct guc_css_header)) {
-   DRM_NOTE("CSS header definition mismatch\n");
+   DRM_NOTICE("CSS header definition mismatch\n");
goto fail;
}
 
@@ -628,7 +628,7 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
 
/* now RSA */
if (css->key_size_dw != UOS_RSA_SCRATCH_MAX_COUNT) {
-   DRM_NOTE("RSA key size is bad\n");
+   DRM_NOTICE("RSA key size is bad\n");
goto fail;
}
guc_fw->rsa_offset = guc_fw->ucode_offset + guc_fw->ucode_size;
@@ -637,14 +637,14 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
/* At least, it should have header, uCode and RSA. Size of all three. */
size = guc_fw->header_size + guc_fw->ucode_size + guc_fw->rsa_size;
if (fw->size < size) {
-   DRM_NOTE("Missing firmware components\n");
+   DRM_NOTICE("Missing firmware components\n");
goto fail;
}
 
/* Header and uCode will be loaded to WOPCM. Size of the two. */
size = guc_fw->header_size + guc_fw->ucode_size;
if (size > guc_wopcm_size(to_i915(dev))) {
-   DRM_NOTE("Firmware is too large to fit in WOPCM\n");
+   DRM_NOTICE("Firmware is too large to fit in WOPCM\n");
goto fail;
}
 
@@ -659,9 +659,11 @@ static void guc_fw_fetch(struct drm_device *dev, struct 
intel_guc_fw *guc_fw)
 
if (guc_fw->guc_fw_major_found != guc_fw->guc_fw_major_wanted ||
guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_found < guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_wanted) {
-   DRM_NOTE("GuC firmware version %d.%d, required %d.%d\n",
-   guc_fw->guc_fw_major_found, guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_found,
-   guc_fw->guc_fw_major_wanted, 
guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_wanted);
+   DRM_NOTICE("GuC firmware version %d.%d, required %d.%d\n",
+  guc_fw->guc_fw_major_found,
+  guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_found,
+  guc_fw->guc_fw_major_wanted,
+  guc_fw->guc_fw_minor_wanted);
err = -ENOEXEC;
goto fail;
}
diff --git a/include/drm/drmP.h b/include/drm/drmP.h
index c53dc90942e0..95cd04aa9bf7 100644
--- a/include/drm/drmP.h
+++ b/include/drm/drmP.h
@@ -168,25 +168,25 @@ void drm_printk(const char *level, unsigned int category,
 /** \name Macros to make printk easier */
 /*@{*/
 
-#define _DRM_PRINTK(once, level, fmt, ...) \
-   do {\
-   printk##once(KERN_##level "[" DRM_NAME "] " fmt,\
-##__VA_ARGS__);\
-   } while (0)
+#define _drm_printk(level,