[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915/sdvo: Actually print the reason why the SDVO command failed

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 08:44:26PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Ville Syrjala (2019-04-09 15:40:54)
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > It's much easier to figure out why the SDVO encoder refuses to cooperate
> > if we can see what status we got back.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
> > index d5a95eca23ba..5d928f6d0028 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c
> > @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ static bool intel_sdvo_read_response(struct intel_sdvo *intel_sdvo,
> >         u8 status;
> >         int i, pos = 0;
> >  #define BUF_LEN 256
> > -       char buffer[BUF_LEN];
> > +       char buffer[BUF_LEN] = {};
> 
> I should stop quibbling over a 256b memset.

Hmm. I wonder if 256 bytes isn't a bit excessive actually.

Max 8 responses 3 chars each, and 21 or so bytes for the status string.
Comes to a total of 45 chars. A bit more for intel_sdvo_debug_write()
since it wants to print the command name.

> 
> >         /*
> > @@ -581,7 +581,8 @@ static bool intel_sdvo_read_response(struct intel_sdvo *intel_sdvo,
> >         return true;
> >  
> >  log_fail:
> > -       DRM_DEBUG_KMS("%s: R: ... failed\n", SDVO_NAME(intel_sdvo));
> > +       DRM_DEBUG_KMS("%s: R: ... failed %s\n",
> > +                     SDVO_NAME(intel_sdvo), buffer);
> 
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> -Chris

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel