Re: [PATCH v8 1/6] drm/i915 : Unifying seq_puts messages for feature support

[Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>]

On 10/26/2017 11:24 PM, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>
>
> On 25/10/17 06:31, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:21:20 +0200, Sujaritha Sundaresan 
>> <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unifying the various seq_puts messages in debugfs to the simplest 
>>> one for
>>> feature support.
As Michal noted in the v7 review, if the goal is to unification of 
consistent output then I see some more in the debugfs that
might need to be updated: *_wm_latency_open, i915_ipc_status, 
i915_runtime_pm_status(returning early could be done later)
i915_llc (add change to return early).
Also, I think this patch can be separated from this series as it has 
very little dependency.
>>>
>>> v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha)
>>>
>>> v3: Re-factoring code as per review (Michal)
>>>
>>> v4: Rebase
>>>
>>> v5: Split from following patch
>>>
>>> v6: Re-factoring code (Michal, Sagar)
>>>     Clarifying commit message (Sagar)
>>>
>>> v7: Generalizing subject to drm/i915 (Sagar)
>>>
>>> v8: Omitting DRRS seq_puts unification (Michal)
>>>
>>> Suggested by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c 
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>> index c65e381..8edd029 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>> @@ -1641,7 +1641,7 @@ static int i915_fbc_status(struct seq_file *m, 
>>> void *unused)
>>>      struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
>>>     if (!HAS_FBC(dev_priv)) {
>>> -        seq_puts(m, "FBC unsupported on this chipset\n");
>>> +        seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>>>          return 0;
>>>      }
>>> @@ -1809,7 +1809,7 @@ static int i915_ring_freq_table(struct 
>>> seq_file *m, void *unused)
>>>      unsigned int max_gpu_freq, min_gpu_freq;
>>>     if (!HAS_LLC(dev_priv)) {
>>> -        seq_puts(m, "unsupported on this chipset\n");
>>> +        seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>>>          return 0;
>>>      }
>>> @@ -2361,8 +2361,10 @@ static int i915_huc_load_status_info(struct 
>>> seq_file *m, void *data)
>>>      struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
>>>      struct drm_printer p;
>>> -    if (!HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
>>> +    if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {
>>
>> Hmm, I think that in above code we should use HAS_HUC defined as:
>>
>> /* HuC is inherent part of the GuC ... */
>> #define HAS_HUC(dev_priv)    HAS_GUC(dev_priv)
>>
>> to make it clear that code checks HuC sub-feature (not other part
>> of the GuC or GuC itself). And additionally we can use above define
>> to explicitly document relation between GuC and HuC.
>>
>> Michal
>>
>
> The suggested comment feels confusing to me. HuC is a different 
> microcontroller and not a part of GuC. The only tie the 2 have is that 
> GuC needs to do the authentication. It is however true that any 
> platform that has a GuC also has a HuC so the suggested define itself 
> is fine.
>
> Daniele
>
>>> +        seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>>>          return 0;
>>> +    }
>>>     p = drm_seq_file_printer(m);
>>>      intel_uc_fw_dump(&dev_priv->huc.fw, &p);
>>> @@ -2380,8 +2382,10 @@ static int i915_guc_load_status_info(struct 
>>> seq_file *m, void *data)
>>>      struct drm_printer p;
>>>      u32 tmp, i;
>>> -    if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
>>> +    if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {
>>> +        seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>>>          return 0;
>>> +    }
>>>     p = drm_seq_file_printer(m);
>>>      intel_uc_fw_dump(&dev_priv->guc.fw, &p);
>>> @@ -2650,7 +2654,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file 
>>> *m, void *data)
>>>      bool enabled = false;
>>>     if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv)) {
>>> -        seq_puts(m, "PSR not supported\n");
>>> +        seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>>>          return 0;
>>>      }
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx