[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 1/5] drm/i915/guc : Unifying seq_puts messages

[Michal Wajdeczko]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:13:12 +0200, Sagar Arun Kamble  
<sagar.a.kamble at intel.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 10/4/2017 4:25 AM, Sujaritha Sundaresan wrote:
>> Unifying the various seq_puts messages to the simplest one
>>
>> v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha)
>>
>> v3: Unify seq_puts messages, Re-factoring code as per review (Michal)
>>
>> v4: Rebase
>>
>> v5: Separated into a separate patch
>>
>> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
>> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>
>> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo at intel.com>
>> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 10 +++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c  
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> index 847f8e8..53e40dd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> @@ -1616,7 +1616,7 @@ static int i915_fbc_status(struct seq_file *m,  
>> void *unused)
>>   	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
>>     	if (!HAS_FBC(dev_priv)) {
>> -		seq_puts(m, "FBC unsupported on this chipset\n");
>> +		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>>   		return 0;
>>   	}
>>   @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int i915_ring_freq_table(struct seq_file  
>> *m, void *unused)
>>   	unsigned int max_gpu_freq, min_gpu_freq;
>>     	if (!HAS_LLC(dev_priv)) {
>> -		seq_puts(m, "unsupported on this chipset\n");
>> +		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>>   		return 0;
>>   	}
>>   @@ -2654,7 +2654,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file  
>> *m, void *data)
>>   	bool enabled = false;
>>     	if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv)) {
>> -		seq_puts(m, "PSR not supported\n");
>> +		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>>   		return 0;
>>   	}
>>   @@ -2807,7 +2807,7 @@ static int i915_runtime_pm_status(struct  
>> seq_file *m, void *unused)
>>   	struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
>>     	if (!HAS_RUNTIME_PM(dev_priv))
>> -		seq_puts(m, "Runtime power management not supported\n");
>> +		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");

This one also does not fit into unified "early return" pattern.

>>     	seq_printf(m, "GPU idle: %s\n", yesno(!dev_priv->gt.awake));
>>   	seq_printf(m, "IRQs disabled: %s\n",
>> @@ -3683,7 +3683,7 @@ static void drrs_status_per_crtc(struct seq_file  
>> *m,
>>   		mutex_unlock(&drrs->mutex);
>>   	} else {
>>   		/* DRRS not supported. Print the VBT parameter*/
>> -		seq_puts(m, "\tDRRS Supported : No");
>> +		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
> There is corresponding "Yes" seq_puts above. Please update that as well.
> Commit subject looks little ambiguous. can we say unify seq_puts  
> messages for feature support.
>>   	}
>>   	seq_puts(m, "\n");
>>   }