[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/11] drm/i915: Print all workaround types correctly in debugfs

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Oscar Mateo (2017-10-11 19:15:18)
> Let's try to make sure that all WAs are applied correctly and survive
> resumes, resets, etc... (with some help from a companion i-g-t patch).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo at intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index f108f53..fb49eac 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -3399,6 +3399,20 @@ static int i915_shared_dplls_info(struct seq_file *m, void *unused)
>         return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static void check_wa_register(struct seq_file *m, struct i915_wa_reg *wa_reg)
> +{
> +       struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
> +       u32 read;
> +       bool ok;
> +
> +       read = I915_READ(wa_reg->addr);
> +       ok = (wa_reg->value & wa_reg->mask) == (read & wa_reg->mask);
> +       seq_printf(m, "0x%X: 0x%08x, mask: 0x%08x, read: 0x%08x, status: %s\n",
> +                  i915_mmio_reg_offset(wa_reg->addr),
> +                  wa_reg->value, wa_reg->mask, read,
> +                  ok ? "OK" : "FAIL");

So one thing I've been considering is adding the Wa name for easier
cross-referencing. I am just worried about the number of strings and
whether we should put those names anywhere near user visible output.
-Chris