From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B8CC3F2D1 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 18:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9288208C3 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 18:02:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D9288208C3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D6E6E353; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 18:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFF5C6E353 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 18:02:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2020 10:02:51 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,518,1574150400"; d="scan'208";a="229780713" Received: from nreina-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO intel.com) ([10.252.24.146]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2020 10:02:48 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 20:02:46 +0200 From: Andi Shyti To: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio Message-ID: <20200305180246.GA21851@intel.intel> References: <20200228022843.1936-1-daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com> <20200228022843.1936-6-daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com> <20200303015211.GF1536@intel.intel> <86c2cff6-eff6-6ff9-3774-ca8d7771c3dd@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86c2cff6-eff6-6ff9-3774-ca8d7771c3dd@intel.com> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/6] drm/i915/uc: Move uC debugfs to its own folder under GT X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" Hi Daniele, > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 06:28:42PM -0800, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote: > > > uC is a component of the GT, so it makes sense for the uC debugfs files > > > to be in the GT folder. A subfolder has been used to keep the same > > > structure we have for the code. > > > > Can we please document the interface changes. I see there are > > some differences between the original and the new interfaces. > > > > What differences are you referring to? there aren't supposed to be any, > aside from the path change. Have I seen it wrong or there are new files in this patch? In any case, maybe we need to have the new structure. > > > +#define DEFINE_UC_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(__name) \ > > > + static int __name ## _open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) \ > > > +{ \ > > > + return single_open(file, __name ## _show, inode->i_private); \ > > > +} \ > > > +static const struct file_operations __name ## _fops = { \ > > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, \ > > > + .open = __name ## _open, \ > > > + .read = seq_read, \ > > > + .llseek = seq_lseek, \ > > > + .release = single_release, \ > > > +} > > > > Why do we need DEFINE_UC_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE()? > > > > DEFINE_GT_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE() was meant to be common to all gt > > debugfs. I there any reason we need a new one? > > > > Just wanted to avoid including the other header just for this macro. well that was supposed to be a library for all the gem/debugfs files and avoid duplicated code, I don't see anything wrong with including the file. > > > +struct debugfs_uc_file { > > > + const char *name; > > > + const struct file_operations *fops; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +#define debugfs_uc_register_files(files__, root__, data__) \ > > > +do { \ > > > + int i__ = 0; \ > > > + for (i__ = 0; i__ < ARRAY_SIZE(files__); i__++) { \ > > > + debugfs_create_file(files__[i__].name, \ > > > + 0444, root__, data__, \ > > > + files__[i__].fops); \ > > > + } \ > > > +} while (0) > > > > You want to define your own debugfs_uc_register_files() instead > > of using debugfs_gt_register_files() because you want "data__" > > to be void, right? > > > > I think we can achieve that by adding a wrapper in debugfs_gt.c, > > perhaps we can do something like: > > > > void __debugfs_gt_register_files(struct intel_gt *gt, > > struct dentry *root, > > const struct debugfs_gt_file *files, > > void *data, > > unsigned long count) > > { > > ...... > > } > > > > and > > > > #define debugfs_gt_register_files(...) __debugfs_gt_register_files(...) > > #define debugfs_uc_register_files(...) __debugfs_gt_register_files(...) > > > > so that we can keep everything in a library. What do you think. > > > > LGTM. Mind if I rename to: > > intel_gt_debugfs_register(...) > intel_uc_debugfs_register(...) > > to avoid the debugfs_* prefix, as pointed out by Jani? I have a patch for it, can you please hold a little, unless, of course, yours is already ready. Obvously, the naming you propose makes sense. Andi _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx