Hi Mario,
Thanks for your comments.
I replied inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:16 PM
> To: Li, Roman <Roman.Li@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@xxxxxxx>; Wentland, Harry
> <Harry.Wentland@xxxxxxx>; Rizvi, Saaem <SyedSaaem.Rizvi@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Li, Roman <Roman.Li@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] drm/amd/display: Align dcn314_smu logging with other
> DCNs
>
> [Public]
>
> Conceptually makes sense to me, but please see below comments:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roman.Li@xxxxxxx <Roman.Li@xxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 15:07
> > To: amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Deucher, Alexander
> > <Alexander.Deucher@xxxxxxx>; Wentland, Harry
> <Harry.Wentland@xxxxxxx>;
> > Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>; Rizvi, Saaem
> > <SyedSaaem.Rizvi@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Li, Roman <Roman.Li@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [PATCH] drm/amd/display: Align dcn314_smu logging with other
> > DCNs
> >
> > From: Roman Li <roman.li@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > [Why]
> > Assert on non-OK response from SMU is unnecessary.
> > It was replaced with respective log message on other asics in the past
> > with commit:
> > "drm/amd/display: Removing assert statements for Linux"
> >
> > [How]
> > Remove asert and add dbg logging as on other DCNs.
I will fix "assert" spelling before merging.
> >
> > CC: Saaem Rizvi <SyedSaaem.Rizvi@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Li <roman.li@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../drm/amd/display/dc/clk_mgr/dcn314/dcn314_smu.c | 11 +++++++++-
> -
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/clk_mgr/dcn314/dcn314_smu.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/clk_mgr/dcn314/dcn314_smu.c
> > index ef0795b14a1f..2db595672a46 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/clk_mgr/dcn314/dcn314_smu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/clk_mgr/dcn314/dcn314_smu.c
> > @@ -123,9 +123,10 @@ static int
> > dcn314_smu_send_msg_with_param(struct clk_mgr_internal *clk_mgr,
> > uint32_t result;
> >
> > result = dcn314_smu_wait_for_response(clk_mgr, 10, 200000);
> > - ASSERT(result == VBIOSSMC_Result_OK);
>
> Does this flow actually happen still? I thought the assertion should have
> gone away as a result of 83293f7f3d15fc56e86bd5067a2c88b6b233ac3a.
>
Happens or not, we don't assert here on other asics.
I don't try to fix any bugs with this patch, just align the dcn314 logging/bug reporting with other asics.
> Maybe we want to also undo the REG_WRITE() call there if pulling this in.
>
> >
> > - smu_print("SMU response after wait: %d\n", result);
> > + if (result != VBIOSSMC_Result_OK)
> > + smu_print("SMU Response was not OK. SMU response after
> > wait received is: %d\n",
> > + result);
> >
> > if (result == VBIOSSMC_Status_BUSY)
> > return -1;
>
> I think what is missing to clean up recent asserts is actually a little bit further
> in the code than this. It should be part of the error flow introduced by
> 03ad3093c7c069d6ab4403730009ebafeea9ee37
03ad3093c7c069d6a is for dcn3.1 initially.
If there's an issue with it (which I didn't experience) it should be addressed on all dcn3x, that reuse it, in a separate patch.
>
> > @@ -216,6 +217,12 @@ int dcn314_smu_set_hard_min_dcfclk(struct
> > clk_mgr_internal *clk_mgr, int request
> > VBIOSSMC_MSG_SetHardMinDcfclkByFreq,
> > khz_to_mhz_ceil(requested_dcfclk_khz));
> >
> > +#ifdef DBG
> > + smu_print("actual_dcfclk_set_mhz %d is set to : %d\n",
> > + actual_dcfclk_set_mhz,
> > + actual_dcfclk_set_mhz * 1000);
> > +#endif
> > +
> > return actual_dcfclk_set_mhz * 1000; }
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
Thanks,
Roman
