[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 21/24] drm/i915/display: Move verbose_state_checks under display
Hogander, Jouni
jouni.hogander at intel.com
Tue Oct 24 08:22:21 UTC 2023
On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 17:00 +0300, Luca Coelho wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 14:16 +0300, Jouni Högander wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander at intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c | 3 +++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h | 1 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 3 ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h | 1 -
> > 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h
> > index ba3548f9768d..bc95fb377386 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h
> > @@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ bool assert_port_valid(struct drm_i915_private
> > *i915, enum port port);
> > struct drm_device *drm = &(__i915)-
> > >drm; \
> > int __ret_warn_on =
> > !!(condition); \
> > if
> > (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) \
> > - if (!drm_WARN(drm, __i915-
> > >params.verbose_state_checks, format)) \
> > + if (!drm_WARN(drm, __i915-
> > >display.params.verbose_state_checks, format)) \
> > drm_err(drm,
> > format); \
> > unlikely(__ret_warn_on);
> > \
> > })
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c
> > index 06e68c7fec1c..e86766639396 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c
> > @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@
> > intel_display_param_named_unsafe(force_reset_modeset_test, bool,
> > 0400,
> > intel_display_param_named(disable_display, bool, 0400,
> > "Disable display (default: false)");
> >
> > +intel_display_param_named(verbose_state_checks, bool, 0400,
> > + "Enable verbose logs (ie. WARN_ON()) in case of unexpected
> > hw state conditions.");
> > +
> > intel_display_param_named_unsafe(enable_fbc, int, 0400,
> > "Enable frame buffer compression for power savings "
> > "(default: -1 (use per-chip default))");
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h
> > index 60d9c3d59fe4..b35443f51375 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h
> > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct drm_i915_private;
> > param(bool, load_detect_test, false, 0600) \
> > param(bool, force_reset_modeset_test, false, 0600) \
> > param(bool, disable_display, false, 0400) \
> > + param(bool, verbose_state_checks, true, 0) \
>
> Why is this one 0? Why can't we even read it?
I found this comment in older commit message written by Jani Nikula:
"0 mode will bypass debugfs creation. Use it for verbose_state_checks
which will need special attention in follow-up work."
BR,
Jouni Högander
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Luca.
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list