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.
> ÓÚ Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:43:24 +0100
> Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> дµÀ:
>
>> On 17/06/2021 07:20, ChunyouTang wrote:
>>> From: ChunyouTang <tangchunyou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> 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)
>>>
>
>
