[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 07/55] drm/i915: Avoid using intel_engine_cs *ring for GPU error capture

[Chris Wilson]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 07:59:29AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ma, 2016-07-25 at 18:31 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> 
> > Inside the error capture itself, we refer to not only the hardware
> > engine, its ringbuffer but also the capture state. Finding clear names
> > for each whilst avoiding mixing ring/intel_engine_cs is tricky. As a
> > compromise we keep using ering for the error capture.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1469432687-22756-8-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h       |   6 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 255 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  2 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 127 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> > @@ -240,69 +240,71 @@ static const char *hangcheck_action_to_str(enum intel_ring_hangcheck_action a)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void i915_ring_error_state(struct drm_i915_error_state_buf *m,
> > -				  struct drm_device *dev,
> > -				  struct drm_i915_error_state *error,
> > -				  int ring_idx)
> > +				    struct drm_device *dev,
> > +				    struct drm_i915_error_state *error,
> > +				    int engine_idx)
> >  {
> > -	struct drm_i915_error_ring *ring = &error->ring[ring_idx];
> > +	struct drm_i915_error_engine *ering = &error->engine[engine_idx];
> >  
> 
> I'd be inclined keeping the struct and variable names close, so rather
> eengine. Even though the error state is a mashup. We fill the ring
> state to the engine error state. Function could be
> i915_engine_error_ring_state() or so, to "reduce" confusion?

i915_error_print_engine()

(We may eventually get to the point where the capture/error functions
are clearly and distinctly labelled!)

> 
> > @@ -414,7 +416,7 @@ int i915_error_state_to_str(struct drm_i915_error_state_buf *m,
> >  	if (IS_GEN7(dev))
> >  		err_printf(m, "ERR_INT: 0x%08x\n", error->err_int);
> >  
> > -	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(error->ring); i++)
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(error->engine); i++)
> >  		i915_ring_error_state(m, dev, error, i);
> >  
> 
> This captures the engine related ring state, I think it's even worth a
> comment when there is engine vs. error disparity.

This becomes

	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(error->engine); i++)
		i915_error_print_engine(m, &error->engine[i]);

> And how about the messages? Should we update them more agressively
> where necessary.

Ignoring the tautology in engine->name, in the actual error print the
only times we explicitly refer to ring we do mean the ring.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre