[Intel-xe] [PATCH 2/2] drm/xe: Replace DRM_ERROR() with pr_err()

[Gustavo Sousa]

Quoting Gustavo Sousa (2023-05-29 10:42:51-03:00)
>Quoting Matt Roper (2023-05-26 18:48:17-03:00)
>>On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 09:42:35PM -0300, Gustavo Sousa wrote:
>>> The former has been deprecated in favor of the latter.
>>
>>It has?  I thought generally the goal has been to replace DRM_FOO() with
>>drm_foo() (i.e., drm_err() in this case) because then you get nicer
>>device-specific output.  Or when we're doing something GT-specific, we
>>move to xe_gt_err() so that the useful information about which GT is
>>automatically included.
>
>That's what drm_print.h currently says:
>
>  /* NOTE: this is deprecated in favor of pr_err(). */
>  #define DRM_ERROR(fmt, ...)                                             \
>          __drm_err(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
>But, yeah, I believe using pr_err() would be the case when we do not
>have a drm_device at hand.
>
>>
>>It looks like xe_reg_sr_add() doesn't have a reference to a drm_device
>>to use drm_err (I didn't check how hard it would be to plumb down to
>>that point), but xe_vm_bind_ioctl() should be able to use drm_err() I
>>think?
>
>Hm... Yeah, that's right, we can easily use the drm_device reference in
>xe_vm_bind_ioctl(). As for xe_reg_sr_add(), there is only one caller
>(rtp_add_sr_entry()) and I believe we could have xe being passed as
>argument - I do not think it is worth adding an xe member to struct
>xe_reg_sr, at least not this time.
>
>Thanks for the feedback! I'll send a v2.

V2 was sent with a different subject. It can be found at:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/118515/

>
>--
>Gustavo Sousa