[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/guc: Add GuC Load time to dmesg log.

[Anusha Srivatsa]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 01:24:15PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2017-11-01 13:14:33)
> > On Wed, 01 Nov 2017 01:11:20 +0100, Anusha Srivatsa  
> > > @@ -172,13 +174,18 @@ static int guc_ucode_xfer_dma(struct  
> > > drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > >        */
> > >       ret = wait_for(guc_ucode_response(dev_priv, &status), 100);
> > > +     load_time = ktime_ms_delta(ktime_get(), start_load);
> > > +
> > >       DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("DMA status 0x%x, GuC status 0x%x\n",
> > >                       I915_READ(DMA_CTRL), status);
> > >       if ((status & GS_BOOTROM_MASK) == GS_BOOTROM_RSA_FAILED) {
> > >               DRM_ERROR("GuC firmware signature verification failed\n");
> > >               ret = -ENOEXEC;
> > > -     }
> > > +     } else if (load_time > 20)
> > > +             DRM_NOTE("GuC load takes more than acceptable threshold\n");
> > 
> > Please add threshold and actual load time to the message to let user
> > know that times
> 
> The more important question is why are we telling the user this at all;
> a significant but normal condition. What do we expect them to do? It
> doesn't impair any functionality of the driver, it just took longer than
> you expected -- which may be simply because the system was doing
> something else and we slept for longer.

Chris, I am inclining to have this info more for us than the user. It is more of
a debug print to give us some data. We can see if firmware takes peculiarly
long time to load. We know its normal to be within 20ms range. So, alert
if it takes longer than that...

> -Chris

-- 
Anusha Srivatsa