Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/rockchip: dsi: Perform trivial code cleanups

[Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>]

On 2024-11-08 15:30, Dragan Simic wrote:
> On 2024-11-08 15:22, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 8. November 2024, 15:13:33 CET schrieb Dragan Simic:
>>> On 2024-11-08 15:09, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>>> > Am Freitag, 8. November 2024, 15:05:02 CET schrieb Dragan Simic:
>>> >> On 2024-11-08 14:56, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>>> >> > Am Freitag, 8. November 2024, 14:53:57 CET schrieb Dragan Simic:
>>> >> >> Perform a few trivial code cleanups, to make one logged message a bit
>>> >> >> more
>>> >> >> consistent with the other logged messages by capitalizing its first
>>> >> >> word, and
>>> >> >> to avoid line wrapping by using the 100-column width better.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> No intended functional changes are introduced by these code cleanups.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
>>> >> >> ---
>>> >> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi-rockchip.c | 12 ++++--------
>>> >> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi-rockchip.c
>>> >> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi-rockchip.c
>>> >> >> index 58a44af0e9ad..f451e70efbdd 100644
>>> >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi-rockchip.c
>>> >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi-rockchip.c
>>> >> >> @@ -1379,7 +1379,7 @@ static int dw_mipi_dsi_rockchip_probe(struct
>>> >> >> platform_device *pdev)
>>> >> >>  	}
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>  	if (!dsi->cdata) {
>>> >> >> -		DRM_DEV_ERROR(dev, "no dsi-config for %s node\n", np->name);
>>> >> >> +		DRM_DEV_ERROR(dev, "No dsi-config for %s node\n", np->name);
>>> >> >
>>> >> > this is all probe-related, why not convert to dev_err_probe?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > As the doc states [0], DRM_DEV_ERROR is deprecated in favor of dev_err.
>>> >> > So dev_err_probe would be the correct way to go?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for your quick response!  Seeing that DRM_DEV_ERROR() is now
>>> >> deprecated (which I originally missed, in all honesty) makes me very
>>> >> happy. :)  I've never been a huge fan of the format of the messages
>>> >> that DRM_DEV_ERROR() produces.
>>> >>
>>> >> However, perhaps it would be better to keep these patches as-is, as
>>> >> some kind of an intermediate, limited-scope cleanup + bugfix combo,
>>> >> and leave the complete DRM_DEV_ERROR() --> dev_err()/dev_err_probe()
>>> >> conversion to separate patches.  I think it would be better to avoid
>>> >> a partial conversion, and I'll be more than happy to put the complete
>>> >> conversion on my TODO list. :)
>>> >
>>> > But your patch-2 really just open-codes, what dev_err_probe is meant
>>> > to fix. So with going this way, you're sort of making things worse
>>> > first,
>>> > until that second step happens.
>>> >
>>> > Similarly, reflowing lines for things that get removed in a week do not
>>> > serve a purpose - those line-breaks have been that way for years
>>> > already.
>>> 
>>> Hmm, it makes sense when described that way.  I'll see to perform the
>>> complete conversion in the next few days.
>> 
>> just a note, as written on IRC earlier, I am sitting on a 
>> dev_err_probe
>> conversion for dw-dsi-rockchip.
>> 
>> I was waiting to see if more cleanups turned up, so didn't sent that 
>> yet.
>> 
>> Don't want to steal your spotlight though, so not sure if I should 
>> send
>> that or wait for your conversion ;-)
> 
> I see no reasons why should we duplicate some effort. :)  If you're
> already nearing the file-level conversion to its completion, please
> feel free to send it, and we can drop this series. :)

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.  When I wrote "we can drop this series",
I actually referred to what this series might have turned into, i.e.
into my file-level conversion. :)