[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2023 23:47:50 +0530
From: Siddh Raman Pant <code@...dh.me>
To: "Laurent Pinchart" <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: "Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@...nel.org>,
"Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
"David Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@...ll.ch>,
"Andrzej Hajda" <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
"Neil Armstrong" <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
"Robert Foss" <rfoss@...nel.org>,
"Jonas Karlman" <jonas@...boo.se>,
"Jernej Skrabec" <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
"dri-devel" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Suraj Upadhyay" <usuraj35@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/8] drm: Remove usage of deprecated DRM_* macros
On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 23:19:28 +0530, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> The idea would be to include the drm_print_deprecated.h header in
> drivers that still use the deprecated macros.
Yeah, what I meant was in a "first pass" kind of sense.
> > Not every file can be seen at a case-by-case basis or by coccinelle
> > as far as I understand its usage. Consider the following:
> >
> > DRM_INFO is used on line 210 of amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c, but the
> > file does not even include drm_print.h directly. It includes the
> > amdgpu.h header, which includes the amdgpu_ring.h header, which
> > finally has the "#include " line.
> >
> > If a simple find and replace has to be done, then that can be added
> > at the end of the series.
>
> Maybe a simple grep for the deprecated macros would be enough to
> identify all the files that still use them ?
Hmm, so the drm_print_deprecated.h should be included individually on
all the files, regardless of whether they include drm_print.h directly
or not?
Actually that makes sense, so further inclusion of top-level header
would not automatically include the deprecated macros.
Since this needs some thought, I will be sending v10 without this.
This change can be sent later separately, as it will anyways be a
huge patch, and 10 is already a big enough revision number.
Thanks,
Siddh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists