[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 1/4] drm/i915 : Unifying seq_puts messages for feature support

[Michal Wajdeczko]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:50:46 +0200, Sujaritha Sundaresan  
<sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com> wrote:

> Unifying the various seq_puts messages in debugfs to the simplest one for
> feature support.
>
> v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha)
>
> v3: Re-factoring code as per review (Michal)
>
> v4: Rebase
>
> v5: Split from following patch
>
> v6: Re-factoring code (Michal, Sagar)
>     Clarifying commit message (Sagar)
>
> v7: Generalizing subject to drm/i915 (Sagar)
>
> Suggested by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com>
> 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>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c  
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 40287e9..ac25d63 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -1641,7 +1641,7 @@ 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;
>  	}
> @@ -1809,7 +1809,7 @@ 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;
>  	}
> @@ -2361,8 +2361,11 @@ static int i915_huc_load_status_info(struct  
> seq_file *m, void *data)
>  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
>  	struct intel_uc_fw *huc_fw = &dev_priv->huc.fw;
> -	if (!HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
> +	if (!HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv)) {
> +		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>  		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> 	seq_puts(m, "HuC firmware status:\n");
>  	seq_printf(m, "\tpath: %s\n", huc_fw->path);
> @@ -2394,8 +2397,11 @@ static int i915_guc_load_status_info(struct  
> seq_file *m, void *data)
>  	struct intel_uc_fw *guc_fw = &dev_priv->guc.fw;
>  	u32 tmp, i;
> -	if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
> +	if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv)) {

Maybe now is a good time to change condition into HAS_GUC ?
Same for the earlier HAS_HUC

> +		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>  		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> 	seq_printf(m, "GuC firmware status:\n");
>  	seq_printf(m, "\tpath: %s\n",
> @@ -2679,7 +2685,7 @@ 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;
>  	}
> @@ -3546,7 +3552,7 @@ static void drrs_status_per_crtc(struct seq_file  
> *m,
> 		mutex_lock(&drrs->mutex);
>  		/* DRRS Supported */
> -		seq_puts(m, "\tDRRS Supported: Yes\n");
> +		seq_puts(m, "supported\n");
> 		/* disable_drrs() will make drrs->dp NULL */
>  		if (!drrs->dp) {
> @@ -3578,7 +3584,7 @@ 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");
>  	}
>  	seq_puts(m, "\n");
>  }

Hmm, the goal of this unification was to provide consistent output
 from those entries that have early return:

	if (!HAS_XXX(dev_priv)) {
		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
		return 0;
	}

but this drrs_status_per_crts function is different, so I'm not
sure that unified approach can be applied here

Michal