On 10/25/2017 06:31 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:21:20 +0200, Sujaritha Sundaresan
<sujaritha.sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Unifying the various seq_puts messages in debugfs to the simplest one
for
feature support.
v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha)
v3: Re-factoring code as per review (Michal)
v4: Rebase
v5: Split from following patch
v6: Re-factoring code (Michal, Sagar)
Clarifying commit message (Sagar)
v7: Generalizing subject to drm/i915 (Sagar)
v8: Omitting DRRS seq_puts unification (Michal)
Suggested by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 14 +++++++++-----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index c65e381..8edd029 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -1641,7 +1641,7 @@ static int i915_fbc_status(struct seq_file *m,
void *unused)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
if (!HAS_FBC(dev_priv)) {
- seq_puts(m, "FBC unsupported on this chipset\n");
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
}
@@ -1809,7 +1809,7 @@ static int i915_ring_freq_table(struct seq_file
*m, void *unused)
unsigned int max_gpu_freq, min_gpu_freq;
if (!HAS_LLC(dev_priv)) {
- seq_puts(m, "unsupported on this chipset\n");
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
}
@@ -2361,8 +2361,10 @@ static int i915_huc_load_status_info(struct
seq_file *m, void *data)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
struct drm_printer p;
- if (!HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
+ if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {
Hmm, I think that in above code we should use HAS_HUC defined as:
/* HuC is inherent part of the GuC ... */
#define HAS_HUC(dev_priv) HAS_GUC(dev_priv)
to make it clear that code checks HuC sub-feature (not other part
of the GuC or GuC itself). And additionally we can use above define
to explicitly document relation between GuC and HuC.
Michal
Sure, I will include the HAS_HUC condition and a comment that clarifies
the HuC and GuC tie in the next revision.
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
+ }
p = drm_seq_file_printer(m);
intel_uc_fw_dump(&dev_priv->huc.fw, &p);
@@ -2380,8 +2382,10 @@ static int i915_guc_load_status_info(struct
seq_file *m, void *data)
struct drm_printer p;
u32 tmp, i;
- if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
+ if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) {
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
+ }
p = drm_seq_file_printer(m);
intel_uc_fw_dump(&dev_priv->guc.fw, &p);
@@ -2650,7 +2654,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file
*m, void *data)
bool enabled = false;
if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv)) {
- seq_puts(m, "PSR not supported\n");
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
}
Thanks for the review.
Regards,
Sujaritha
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
