[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:26:19AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 13-08-18 om 20:15 schreef Pandiyan, Dhinakaran:
> > On Mon, 2018-08-13 at 09:47 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 03:47:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >>> Op 11-08-18 om 02:50 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> >>>> We print the last attempted entry and last exit timestamps only
> >>>> when
> >>>> IRQ debug is requested. This check was missed when new debug
> >>>> flags were
> >>>> added in 'commit c44301fce614 ("drm/i915: Allow control of PSR at
> >>>> runtime through debugfs, v6")
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan at intel.com
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 +-
> >>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> >>>> index 26b7e5276b15..374b550d9a4f 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> >>>> @@ -2735,7 +2735,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct
> >>>> seq_file *m, void *data)
> >>>>  	psr_source_status(dev_priv, m);
> >>>>  	mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> >>>>  
> >>>> -	if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug)) {
> >>>> +	if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ)
> >>>> {
> >>>>  		seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
> >>>>  			   dev_priv->psr.last_entry_attempt);
> >>>>  		seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n",
> >>> Oops indeed.
> >>>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
> >> before pushing to dinq please check the compilation there..
> >> kbuild bot raised an issue...
> >>
> >> so apparently we will need a backmerge before pushing this...
> > The failures are on 
> >
> > [auto build test ERROR on drm-intel/for-linux-next]
> > [also build test ERROR on v4.18-rc8 next-20180810]

I don't expect this patch on any of this, so let's just ignore it ;)

now I'm asking myself why exactly kbuild bot is trying to apply
patches targeting 4.20 on branches targeting 4.18 and 4.19...

?!  :/

> > Is a back-merge expected to fix that?

my concern was more about having this gap on dinq.

I checked and we are good to push this through dinq
no backmerge needed
so feel free to go ahead.

> and who does that back-merge?

maintainers per need bases

> Yes, this fix should have been pushed to drm-misc-next. So both branches need to be merged. :)