[PATCH] drm/i915: Add debug print about hw config table size

[John Harrison]

On 12/23/2024 15:20, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> On 12/20/2024 5:19 PM, John.C.Harrison at Intel.com wrote:
>> From: John Harrison<John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
>>
>> Add debug info to help investigate a very rare bug:
>>    https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/i915/kernel/-/issues/13385
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Harrison<John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_hwconfig.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_hwconfig.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_hwconfig.c
>> index b67a15f742762..868195c33f5b3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_hwconfig.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_hwconfig.c
>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>>   #include "gt/intel_hwconfig.h"
>>   #include "i915_drv.h"
>>   #include "i915_memcpy.h"
>> +#include "intel_guc_print.h"
>>   
>>   /*
>>    * GuC has a blob containing hardware configuration information (HWConfig).
>> @@ -42,6 +43,8 @@ static int __guc_action_get_hwconfig(struct intel_guc *guc,
>>   	};
>>   	int ret;
>>   
>> +	guc_dbg(guc, "Querying HW config table: size = %d, offset = 0x%08X\n",
>> +		ggtt_size, ggtt_offset);
>
> This seems to result in a double-log where the first print has no 
> useful information, e.g.:
>
> [drm:__guc_action_get_hwconfig [i915]] GT0: GUC: Querying HW config 
> table: size = 0, offset = 0x00000000
> [drm:__guc_action_get_hwconfig [i915]] GT0: GUC: Querying HW config 
> table: size = 752, offset = 0x00D05000
>
> Given that only the second log is useful, IMO better to move the 
> guc_dbg to guc_hwconfig_fill_buffer(), because the info needed for the 
> second print is available there and it is only called once.
I disagree that the first print has no useful information. It tells us 
that a call is being made and these are the parameters. We do not know 
what the failure is. It seems highly unlikely that the size changes from 
query to the next given that the table is a fixed entity. It is much 
more likely to be a caching type issue with GuC reading data the KMD did 
not write. If so, GuC could potentially read non-zero data for the 
initial size query and complain that data is invalid.

The intention is to report all calls with their parameters to try to 
narrow down exactly what calls are not working.

John.


>
> Daniele
>
>>   	ret = intel_guc_send_mmio(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action), NULL, 0);
>>   	if (ret == -ENXIO)
>>   		return -ENOENT;
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20241224/3dd7c60e/attachment-0001.htm>