From: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>
To: Karthik Poosa <karthik.poosa@intel.com>,
<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>, <badal.nilawar@intel.com>,
<rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>, <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe_hwmon_process_reg
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:58:43 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c80b852d-d425-4b4f-81a8-7bf84bd9e1b2@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240404100827.1109447-4-karthik.poosa@intel.com>
Hi Karthik
On 4/4/2024 3:38 PM, Karthik Poosa wrote:
> Return u64 from xe_hwmon_process_reg, instead of a void return,
> input pointer and a bool return.
I don't think you need to add this bool return statement.
It might be for a different version but in this patch i don't see any
bool removal.
>
> With this caller can directly assign return value to the variable without
> need of explicit initialization and pass by reference.
>
> v2:
> - Fix checkpatch warnings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Karthik Poosa <karthik.poosa@intel.com>
> Suggested-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> Cc: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c
> index 2385f05d9504..e234321c165c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hwmon.c
> @@ -121,31 +121,30 @@ static struct xe_reg xe_hwmon_get_reg(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, enum xe_hwmon_reg
> return XE_REG(0);
> }
>
> -static void xe_hwmon_process_reg(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, enum xe_hwmon_reg hwmon_reg,
> - enum xe_hwmon_reg_operation operation, u64 *value,
> - u32 clr, u32 set, int channel)
> +static u64 xe_hwmon_process_reg(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, enum xe_hwmon_reg hwmon_reg,
> + enum xe_hwmon_reg_operation operation,
> + u32 clr, u32 set, int channel)
> {
> struct xe_reg reg;
>
> reg = xe_hwmon_get_reg(hwmon, hwmon_reg, channel);
> -
> if (!XE_REG_IS_VALID(reg))
> - return;
> + return 0;
>
> switch (operation) {
> case REG_READ32:
> - *value = xe_mmio_read32(hwmon->gt, reg);
> + return xe_mmio_read32(hwmon->gt, reg);
> break;
you can remove break as there is no other condition and always returns
read value
> case REG_RMW32:
> - *value = xe_mmio_rmw32(hwmon->gt, reg, clr, set);
> + return xe_mmio_rmw32(hwmon->gt, reg, clr, set);
> break;
> case REG_READ64:
> - *value = xe_mmio_read64_2x32(hwmon->gt, reg);
> + return xe_mmio_read64_2x32(hwmon->gt, reg);
> break;
> default:
> drm_warn(>_to_xe(hwmon->gt)->drm, "Invalid xe hwmon reg operation: %d\n",
> operation);
> - break;
> + return 0;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -163,7 +162,7 @@ static void xe_hwmon_power_max_read(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, int channel, long *v
>
> mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
>
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_READ32, ®_val, 0, 0, channel);
> + reg_val = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_READ32, 0, 0, channel);
> /* Check if PL1 limit is disabled */
> if (!(reg_val & PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN)) {
> *value = PL1_DISABLE;
> @@ -173,7 +172,7 @@ static void xe_hwmon_power_max_read(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, int channel, long *v
> reg_val = REG_FIELD_GET(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, reg_val);
> *value = mul_u64_u32_shr(reg_val, SF_POWER, hwmon->scl_shift_power);
>
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_POWER_SKU, REG_READ64, ®_val, 0, 0, channel);
> + reg_val = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_POWER_SKU, REG_READ64, 0, 0, channel);
> min = REG_FIELD_GET(PKG_MIN_PWR, reg_val);
> min = mul_u64_u32_shr(min, SF_POWER, hwmon->scl_shift_power);
> max = REG_FIELD_GET(PKG_MAX_PWR, reg_val);
> @@ -194,10 +193,10 @@ static int xe_hwmon_power_max_write(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, int channel, long va
>
> /* Disable PL1 limit and verify, as limit cannot be disabled on all platforms */
> if (value == PL1_DISABLE) {
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_RMW32, ®_val,
> - PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN, 0, channel);
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_READ32, ®_val,
> - PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN, 0, channel);
> + reg_val = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_RMW32,
> + PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN, 0, channel);
> + reg_val = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_READ32,
> + PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN, 0, channel);
>
> if (reg_val & PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN) {
> ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> @@ -209,8 +208,8 @@ static int xe_hwmon_power_max_write(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, int channel, long va
> reg_val = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)value << hwmon->scl_shift_power, SF_POWER);
> reg_val = PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN | REG_FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, reg_val);
>
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_RMW32, ®_val,
> - PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN | PKG_PWR_LIM_1, reg_val, channel);
> + reg_val = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_RMW32,
> + PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN | PKG_PWR_LIM_1, reg_val, channel);
> unlock:
> mutex_unlock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> return ret;
> @@ -220,7 +219,7 @@ static void xe_hwmon_power_rated_max_read(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, int channel, l
> {
> u64 reg_val;
>
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_POWER_SKU, REG_READ32, ®_val, 0, 0, channel);
> + reg_val = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_POWER_SKU, REG_READ32, 0, 0, channel);
> reg_val = REG_FIELD_GET(PKG_TDP, reg_val);
> *value = mul_u64_u32_shr(reg_val, SF_POWER, hwmon->scl_shift_power);
> }
> @@ -251,8 +250,8 @@ xe_hwmon_energy_get(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, int channel, long *energy)
> struct xe_hwmon_energy_info *ei = &hwmon->ei[channel];
> u64 reg_val;
>
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_ENERGY_STATUS, REG_READ32,
> - ®_val, 0, 0, channel);
> + reg_val = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_ENERGY_STATUS, REG_READ32,
> + 0, 0, channel);
>
> if (reg_val >= ei->reg_val_prev)
> ei->accum_energy += reg_val - ei->reg_val_prev;
> @@ -278,8 +277,8 @@ xe_hwmon_power_max_interval_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *at
>
> mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
>
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT,
> - REG_READ32, &r, 0, 0, sensor_index);
> + r = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT,
> + REG_READ32, 0, 0, sensor_index);
>
> mutex_unlock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
>
> @@ -367,8 +366,8 @@ xe_hwmon_power_max_interval_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *a
>
> mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
>
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_RMW32, (u64 *)&r,
> - PKG_PWR_LIM_1_TIME, rxy, sensor_index);
> + r = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_RAPL_LIMIT, REG_RMW32,
> + PKG_PWR_LIM_1_TIME, rxy, sensor_index);
>
> mutex_unlock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
>
> @@ -483,8 +482,8 @@ static void xe_hwmon_get_voltage(struct xe_hwmon *hwmon, int channel, long *valu
> {
> u64 reg_val;
>
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_GT_PERF_STATUS,
> - REG_READ32, ®_val, 0, 0, channel);
> + reg_val = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_GT_PERF_STATUS,
> + REG_READ32, 0, 0, channel);
> /* HW register value in units of 2.5 millivolt */
> *value = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(REG_FIELD_GET(VOLTAGE_MASK, reg_val) * 2500, SF_VOLTAGE);
> }
> @@ -769,8 +768,8 @@ xe_hwmon_get_preregistration_info(struct xe_device *xe)
> * so read it once and store the shift values.
> */
> if (XE_REG_IS_VALID(xe_hwmon_get_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_POWER_SKU_UNIT, 0))) {
> - xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_POWER_SKU_UNIT,
> - REG_READ32, &val_sku_unit, 0, 0, 0);
> + val_sku_unit = xe_hwmon_process_reg(hwmon, REG_PKG_POWER_SKU_UNIT,
> + REG_READ32, 0, 0, 0);
> hwmon->scl_shift_power = REG_FIELD_GET(PKG_PWR_UNIT, val_sku_unit);
> hwmon->scl_shift_energy = REG_FIELD_GET(PKG_ENERGY_UNIT, val_sku_unit);
> hwmon->scl_shift_time = REG_FIELD_GET(PKG_TIME_UNIT, val_sku_unit);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-05 7:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-04 10:08 [PATCH v6 0/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe hwmon with couple of fixes Karthik Poosa
2024-04-04 10:04 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe hwmon with couple of fixes (rev6) Patchwork
2024-04-04 10:04 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2024-04-04 10:06 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2024-04-04 10:08 ` [PATCH v6 1/4] drm/xe: Define XE_REG_IS_VALID Karthik Poosa
2024-04-04 13:06 ` Nilawar, Badal
2024-04-04 13:11 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-04-04 10:08 ` [PATCH v6 2/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe_hwmon_get_reg to return struct xe_reg Karthik Poosa
2024-04-04 10:08 ` [PATCH v6 3/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe_hwmon_process_reg Karthik Poosa
2024-04-05 7:28 ` Riana Tauro [this message]
2024-04-04 10:08 ` [PATCH v6 4/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Cast to output precision before multiplying operands Karthik Poosa
2024-04-04 10:18 ` ✓ CI.Build: success for drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe hwmon with couple of fixes (rev6) Patchwork
2024-04-04 10:20 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-04-04 10:22 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c80b852d-d425-4b4f-81a8-7bf84bd9e1b2@intel.com \
--to=riana.tauro@intel.com \
--cc=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
--cc=badal.nilawar@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=karthik.poosa@intel.com \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox