linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/19] drm/panel: drmP.h removal and DRM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190131210312.GA8947@ravnborg.org>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:03:12 +0100
From:   Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:     Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Stefan Mavrodiev <stefan@...mex.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/19] drm/panel: drmP.h removal and DRM_DEV*

Hi Sean.

> Hey Sam,
> Thanks for the patchset, this will make dmesg grepping easier! One comment, and
> you're going to hate me for it: Why use DRM_DEV* instead of DRM_*?
> 
> When I introduced DRM_DEV, it was to cover the case where there are multiple
> instances of the same driver (ie: dual-channel mipi, multiple crtcs, etc). I
> suppose that _could_ happen in the panel space, but it seems more unlikely than
> not.

The rationale for using DRM_DEV* are solely that if a struct device * is avalible,
then we can use this to provide more information about the origin of the logging.

I have not testet it - but from browsing the code I could not see that
DRM_ERROR and friends picked up the module name.
If DRM_ERROR is the right choice I will redo the patches - no problem.

But if we loose the module name then the DRM_DEV* variants are preferable IMO.

Note: I missed DRM_DEV_WARN(), so I left one dev_warn() in the code.

	Sam