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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2FB8C352A1 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 11:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7671F10E131; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 11:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D20F10E02D; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 11:06:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1670324807; x=1701860807; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j/s4k56FcWW7rGTDDJr6WBmvVF+OANMnkay5be1k41M=; b=e9RYlKvTV4+WNWlN73ewjh7wE+JiNwB4dDDEIqABDz+nB145Xz88GYFi OZSuLa18AIA+mOcQ1G0Qkipn97aqjCvTA11Tboo41Dg1ojmY4HfmnePcy hmPM/PV6GO/qdql/947bGp8qKzrjy2O8DCaADXAufBf9mNlJUBHF0rhHH MIu15o6JNLqLx6cMo5wwTp3ACSZ6FSVwl3HYKuyz48khsqtUm+OhnOKa0 FfqIoetWsqIM6V1nxMGUxCJ2Yjuf1Y8STxb1OhTCloPasr/xGxWif+urz CwFGcVp+IsHvPyU91yRTqpcTLwhB0JZ3kYEYQ65JOGInQzyy+jFz6/hjh A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10552"; a="317739137" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,222,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="317739137" Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Dec 2022 03:06:46 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10552"; a="714763101" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,222,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="714763101" Received: from kflahert-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.212.142]) ([10.213.212.142]) by fmsmga004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Dec 2022 03:06:45 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 11:06:43 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 Content-Language: en-US To: Michal Wajdeczko , John Harrison , Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org References: <20221118015858.2548106-1-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> <20221118015858.2548106-5-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> <48f594de-9682-4b60-f934-9420d02b405e@intel.com> <4579b7e8-eae7-b760-66aa-b01273d18aab@intel.com> <9a5a84be-a5ae-7be2-f522-5e976511e4e1@intel.com> <143a660d-de2d-a77a-b490-8ad2add80420@linux.intel.com> <467f47f4-c30f-16ba-3330-a3d4752366a8@intel.com> From: Tvrtko Ursulin Organization: Intel Corporation UK Plc In-Reply-To: <467f47f4-c30f-16ba-3330-a3d4752366a8@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 4/5] drm/i915/guc: Add GuC CT specific debug print wrappers 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: DRI-Devel@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On 05/12/2022 18:44, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > On 05.12.2022 14:16, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >> >> On 02/12/2022 20:14, John Harrison wrote: >> >>>>> and while for dbg level messages it doesn't matter, I assume we should >>>>> be consistent for err/warn/info messages (as those will eventually show >>>>> up to the end user) so let maintainers decide here what is >>>>> expectation here >>>> >>>> Could we have some examples pasted here, of the end result of this >>>> series, for all message "categories" (origins, macros, whatever)? >>> >>> GT initialisation: >>> gt_err(gt, "Failed to allocate scratch page\n"); >>> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: Failed to allocate scratch page >>> >>> G2H notification handler: >>> guc_err(guc, "notification: Invalid length %u for deregister done\n", >>> len); >>> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: GuC notification: Invalid length 0 for >>> deregister done > > please note that today this message is coded as: > > drm_err(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm, "Invalid length %u\n", len); > -> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] Invalid length %u > > which makes this rather an example of meaningless log Okay, so log text needs improving anyway which is orthogonal. >> I'm not liking the inconsistency between gt_err and guc_err where with >> latter callers either need to start the message with lower case because >> of the unstructured "GuC " prefix added. Which then reads bad if callers >> do guc_err(guc, "Error X happend"). >> >> Looks like Michal was pointing out the same thing, AFAIU at least when >> re-reading the thread now. >> >> Why wouldn't this work: >> >> guc_err(guc, "Invalid length %u for deregister done notification\n", len); >> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: GuC: Invalid length 0 for deregister done >> notification > > +1 > >> >> Or if the use case for adding custom prefixes is strong then maybe >> consider: >> >> guc_err(guc, "notification", "Invalid length 0 for deregister done"); >> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: GuC notification: Invalid length 0 for >> deregister done >> >> guc_err(guc, "", "Error X"); >> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: GuC: Error X > > -1 > > this will make logging macros too different from others (unless we > hide/use prefixes inside macros only, but I'm not sure there is any ROI) Yeah I said if the use case is strong, no strong opinion either way. >>> CTB initialisation: >>> ct_probe_error(ct, "Failed to control/%s CTB (%pe)\n", >>> str_enable_disable(enable), ERR_PTR(err)); >>> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: GuC CT Failed to control/enable CTB >>> (EINVAL) >> >> Okay same as above. >> >>> Random meaningless (to me) message that is apparently a display thing: >>> drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, "disabling %s\n", pll->info->name); >>> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm:intel_disable_shared_dpll [i915]] disabling >>> PORT PLL B >> >> Plan is to not touch outside gt/. >> >>> I'm sure you can extrapolate to all other forms of dbg, notice, info, >>> etc. without me having to manually type each one out, given that they >>> are all identical. >>> >>> Personally, I think the above should be just: >>> gt_err(gt, "Failed to allocate scratch page\n"); >>> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: Failed to allocate scratch page >>> >>> gt_err(guc_to_gt(guc), "G2H: Invalid length for deregister done: >>> %u\n", len); >>> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: G2H: Invalid length for deregister done: 0 > > that's probably should be: > > "Invalid length for G2H deregister done: %u\n > > and it will still just look fine if we auto append the 'GuC' prefix: > > i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: GuC: Invalid length for G2H deregister > >>> >>> gt_probe_error(ct_to_gt(ct), "Failed to %s CT %d buffer (%pe)\n", >>> str_enable_disable(enable), send ? "SEND" : "RECV", ERR_PTR(err)); >>> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: Failed to enable CT SEND buffer (EINVAL) > > having "GuC/CT" prefix here will also look fine: > > i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: GuC: Failed to enable CT SEND buffer > i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: GuC: CT: Failed to enable SEND buffer > i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] GT0: CT: Failed to enable SEND buffer Works for me. >> We could but it seems we agreed some weeks ago to consolidate the >> existing CT_ERROR macros and such in this exercise. At least no >> objections were raised to that plan. >> >> If now we want to go back on that, and if you want to have >> guc_to_gt(guc) in all gt/uc/ call sites that's fine by me, but please >> get some acks and consensus from people who work in that area. And under >> that option someone would also need to convert the CT code to new macros. > > while the main goal of this series was to have GT# appended to the log > messages but we also wanted to simplify the use of the logging macros by > passing the component pointer directly (with extra *bonus* that allows > to auto append component specific prefix, if any, like CT macros do) > > IMHO adding guc_xxx() macros with "GuC:" prefix will do the trick and > since many of the existing GuC related logs are already broken or > incomplete, we might fix them accordingly. > > In other words in addition to gt_xxx() I still want additional guc_xxx() > macros (as it will allow us to fix related messages) and ct_xxx() macros > (as we already have CT_xxx so no need to change anything) Both approaches are fine by me as long as it's logical and consistent and we manage not to leave the conversion half-done for too long. Maybe as a way forward work could be split? If John wants to deal with gt_xxx macros, avoid touching GuC (putting his original motivation aside) and you want to convert the gt/uc folder? Assuming John you are okay with "GuC:" and "CT:" prefixes. Regards, Tvrtko