On 3/28/25 14:04, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 4:48 PM Mario Limonciello <supe...@kernel.org> wrote:
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limoncie...@amd.com>
The errors for power consumption in amdgpu_acpi_is_s0ix_active() are
under device scope. As they're drm errors, adjust to drm scope.
Is there an advantage to drm vs dev scope? I guess just consistency
with core drm messages? I presume the drm variants also print device
information so we can differentiate between multiple GPUs in a system?
That was why we transitioned from the DRM to the dev variants in the
first place.
Alex
Yeah it's just consistency that you end up with a [drm] at the end of
the dev_*() prefix for all messages. So you can easily find all drm
core and amdgpu messages by grep'ing '[drm]'.
Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limoncie...@amd.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c
index 840901d65fed7..4372738bf2c9d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c
@@ -1518,14 +1518,14 @@ bool amdgpu_acpi_is_s0ix_active(struct amdgpu_device
*adev)
* in that case.
*/
if (!(acpi_gbl_FADT.flags & ACPI_FADT_LOW_POWER_S0)) {
- dev_err_once(adev->dev,
+ drm_err_once(adev_to_drm(adev),
"Power consumption will be higher as BIOS has not
been configured for suspend-to-idle.\n"
"To use suspend-to-idle change the sleep mode in BIOS
setup.\n");
return false;
}
#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AMD_PMC)
- dev_err_once(adev->dev,
+ drm_err_once(adev_to_drm(adev),
"Power consumption will be higher as the kernel has not been
compiled with CONFIG_AMD_PMC.\n");
return false;
#else
--
2.43.0
