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

[Sujaritha]

On 10/04/2017 04:39 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> 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.

Will revert this one.

>
>>>         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");
>>>   }
  Thanks for the review.

Regards,

Sujaritha