On 2/4/2023 00:19, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote:
So i do have one request - but its a nit - for the following case, should it be a guc_warn instead of a guc_dbg?
(last hunk in this patch)
"No register capture node found for 0x%04X / 0x%08X\n",
ce->guc_id.id, ce->lrc.lrca);"
Did that get discussed in the original code review? I vaguely recall
some reason for it not being a warning. But maybe I'm thinking of
something else?
Otherwise LGTM,
Reviewed-by: Alan Previn <alan.previn.teres.alexis@xxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 16:11 -0800, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
Update a bunch more debug prints to use the new GT based scheme.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
---
.../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c | 51 ++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c
index fc3b994626a4f..5f6e3594dda62 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
alan:snip
