[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 resend 2/5] drm/i915/uc: Add intel_uc_fw_type_repr()

[Michal Wajdeczko]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:27:45PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:21:12AM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> > Some of the DRM_NOTE messages are just using "uC" without specifying
> > which uc they are related to. We can be more user friendly.
> > 
> > v2: moved to the header (Joonas)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> > Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com>
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c |  6 ++++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
> > index c767dc3..e259cae 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
> > @@ -182,10 +182,12 @@ static void fetch_uc_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (uc_fw->major_ver_wanted == 0 && uc_fw->minor_ver_wanted == 0) {
> > -		DRM_NOTE("Skipping uC firmware version check\n");
> > +		DRM_NOTE("Skipping %s firmware version check\n",
> > +			 intel_uc_fw_type_repr(uc_fw->type));
> >  	} else if (uc_fw->major_ver_found != uc_fw->major_ver_wanted ||
> >  		   uc_fw->minor_ver_found < uc_fw->minor_ver_wanted) {
> > -		DRM_NOTE("uC firmware version %d.%d, required %d.%d\n",
> > +		DRM_NOTE("%s firmware version %d.%d, required %d.%d\n",
> > +			 intel_uc_fw_type_repr(uc_fw->type),
> >  			 uc_fw->major_ver_found, uc_fw->minor_ver_found,
> >  			 uc_fw->major_ver_wanted, uc_fw->minor_ver_wanted);
> >  		err = -ENOEXEC;
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
> > index f524387..7139e31 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
> > @@ -125,6 +125,20 @@ enum intel_uc_fw_type {
> >  	INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_HUC
> >  };
> >  
> > +/* User-friendly representation of an enum */
> > +static inline const char *intel_uc_fw_type_repr(enum intel_uc_fw_type type)
> > +{
> > +	switch (type) {
> > +	case INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_GUC:
> > +		return "GuC";
> > +	case INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_HUC:
> > +		return "HuC";
> > +	default:
> > +		MISSING_CASE(type);
> > +		return "<invalid>";
> > +	}
> 
> Do we want to write these (when we have a clear enum type):
> 
> switch (type) {
> case INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_GUC: return "GuC";
> case INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_HUC: return "HuC";
> }
> 
> MISSING_CASE(type);
> return "uC";
> 
> The hope being that the compiler will give us a warning before we
> encounter the runtime WARN.

I was already proposing this option to rely on compiler, but there
was a single nack from Anusha, now overbid ;)

-Michal