[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 4/6] drm/i915/guc: Update name and prototype of i915_guc_log_control

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-01-24 10:07:12)
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:09:10 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble  
> <sagar.a.kamble at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > i915_guc_log_control is GuC interface and GuC APIs that are not user
> > facing should be named with "intel_guc" prefix hence we change name to
> > intel_guc_log_control. Also changed the parameter to intel_guc struct.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble at intel.com>
> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > ---
> 
> Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> 
> with small bikeshed below
> 
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c  | 5 +++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 4 ++--
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h | 2 +-
> >  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c  
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > index b45be0d..c10a9e8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > @@ -2467,14 +2467,15 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data,  
> > u64 *val)
> >  static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val)
> >  {
> >       struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
> > +     struct intel_guc *guc = &dev_priv->guc;
> >       if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
> >               return -ENODEV;
> > -     if (!dev_priv->guc.log.vma)
> > +     if (!guc->log.vma)
> >               return -EINVAL;
> 
> Hmm, as this looks like internal check, maybe better to move
> it into intel_guc_log_control() ?
> 
> Also, I'm not sure that lack of internal vma should be reported
> as -EINVAL

Right, it's not reporting that the user's parameter was wrong, just that
the device wasn't initialised, so ENODEV seems appropriate.
-Chris