[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 1/6] drm/i915 : Unifying seq_puts messages for feature support

[Michal Wajdeczko]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:21:20 +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)
>
> v8: Omitting DRRS seq_puts unification (Michal)
>
> Suggested by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com>
> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa at intel.com>
> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko 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 | 14 +++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c  
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index c65e381..8edd029 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 +2361,10 @@ 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 drm_printer p;
> -	if (!HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
> +	if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {

Hmm, I think that in above code we should use HAS_HUC defined as:

/* HuC is inherent part of the GuC ... */
#define HAS_HUC(dev_priv)	HAS_GUC(dev_priv)

to make it clear that code checks HuC sub-feature (not other part
of the GuC or GuC itself). And additionally we can use above define
to explicitly document relation between GuC and HuC.

Michal

> +		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>  		return 0;
> +	}
> 	p = drm_seq_file_printer(m);
>  	intel_uc_fw_dump(&dev_priv->huc.fw, &p);
> @@ -2380,8 +2382,10 @@ static int i915_guc_load_status_info(struct  
> seq_file *m, void *data)
>  	struct drm_printer p;
>  	u32 tmp, i;
> -	if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
> +	if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {
> +		seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
>  		return 0;
> +	}
> 	p = drm_seq_file_printer(m);
>  	intel_uc_fw_dump(&dev_priv->guc.fw, &p);
> @@ -2650,7 +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;
>  	}