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

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio]

On 25/10/17 06:31, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> 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
> 

The suggested comment feels confusing to me. HuC is a different 
microcontroller and not a part of GuC. The only tie the 2 have is that 
GuC needs to do the authentication. It is however true that any platform 
that has a GuC also has a HuC so the suggested define itself is fine.

Daniele

>> +        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;
>>      }
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx