On 19/06/2021 04:18, Chunyou Tang wrote:
Hi Steve, 1,Now I know how to write the subject 2,the low 8 bits is the exception type in spec.
and you can see prnfrost_exception_name()
switch (exception_code) { /* Non-Fault Status code */ case 0x00: return "NOT_STARTED/IDLE/OK"; case 0x01: return "DONE"; case 0x02: return "INTERRUPTED"; case 0x03: return "STOPPED"; case 0x04: return "TERMINATED"; case 0x08: return "ACTIVE"; ........ ........ case 0xD8: return "ACCESS_FLAG"; case 0xD9 ... 0xDF: return "ACCESS_FLAG"; case 0xE0 ... 0xE7: return "ADDRESS_SIZE_FAULT"; case 0xE8 ... 0xEF: return "MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES_FAULT"; } return "UNKNOWN"; }
the exception_code in case is only 8 bits,so if fault_status in panfrost_gpu_irq_handler() don't & 0xFF,it can't get correct exception reason,it will be always UNKNOWN.
Yes, I'm happy with the change - I just need a patch that I can apply. At the moment this patch only changes the first '0x%08x' output rather than the call to panfrost_exception_name() as well. So we just need a patch which does:
- fault_status & 0xFF, panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status), + fault_status, panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status & 0xFF),
along with a suitable subject/commit message describing the change. If you can send me that I can apply it.
Thanks,
Steve
PS. Sorry for going round in circles here - I'm trying to help you get setup so you'll be able to contribute patches easily in future. An important part of that is ensuring you can send a properly formatted patch to the list.
PPS. I'm still not receiving your emails directly. I don't think it's a problem at my end because I'm receiving other emails, but if you can somehow fix the problem you're likely to receive a faster response.
δΊ Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:43:24 +0100 Steven Price steven.price@arm.com ει:
On 17/06/2021 07:20, ChunyouTang wrote:
From: ChunyouTang tangchunyou@icubecorp.cn
of the low 8 bits.
Please don't split the subject like this. The first line of the commit should be a (very short) summary of the patch. Then a blank line and then a longer description of what the purpose of the patch is and why it's needed.
Also you previously had this as part of a series (the first part adding the "& 0xFF" in the panfrost_exception_name() call). I'm not sure we need two patches for the single line, but as it stands this patch doesn't apply.
Also I'm still not receiving any emails from you directly (only via the list), so it's possible I might have missed something you sent.
Steve
Signed-off-by: ChunyouTang tangchunyou@icubecorp.cn
drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c index 1fffb6a0b24f..d2d287bbf4e7 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static irqreturn_t panfrost_gpu_irq_handler(int irq, void *data) address |= gpu_read(pfdev, GPU_FAULT_ADDRESS_LO); dev_warn(pfdev->dev, "GPU Fault 0x%08x (%s) at 0x%016llx\n",
fault_status & 0xFF,panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status & 0xFF),
fault_status,panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status & 0xFF), address);
if (state & GPU_IRQ_MULTIPLE_FAULT)