On 1/12/2018 6:51 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 07:52:04 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble
<sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
i915 expects GuC log level to be specified as:
0: disabled
1: enabled (verbosity level 0 = min)
2: enabled (verbosity level 1)
3: enabled (verbosity level 2)
4: enabled (verbosity level 3 = max)
Remove the earlier internal layout based logging control from
guc_log_control and send new expected values.
Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the review. Will shared updated rev.
with small bikeshedding below...
tools/intel_guc_logger.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/intel_guc_logger.c b/tools/intel_guc_logger.c
index 031fd84..e695497 100644
--- a/tools/intel_guc_logger.c
+++ b/tools/intel_guc_logger.c
@@ -51,18 +51,27 @@ uint32_t test_duration, max_filesize;
pthread_cond_t underflow_cond, overflow_cond;
bool stop_logging, discard_oldlogs, capturing_stopped;
-static void guc_log_control(bool enable_logging)
+static void guc_log_control(bool enable, uint32_t log_level)
{
int control_fd;
char data[19];
- uint64_t val;
+ uint64_t val = 0;
int ret;
Btw, this shouldn't hurt:
igt_assert_lte(log_level, 3);
Yes
+ /*
+ * i915 expects GuC log level to be specified as:
+ * 0: disabled
+ * 1: enabled (verbosity level 0 = min)
+ * 2: enabled (verbosity level 1)
+ * 3: enabled (verbosity level 2)
+ * 4: enabled (verbosity level 3 = max)
+ */
+ if (enable)
+ val = log_level + 1;
control = enable ? log_level + 1 : 0;
Ok
+
control_fd = igt_debugfs_open(-1, CONTROL_FILE_NAME, O_WRONLY);
igt_assert_f(control_fd >= 0, "couldn't open the guc log control
file\n");
- val = enable_logging ? ((verbosity_level << 4) | 0x1) : 0;
-
ret = snprintf(data, sizeof(data), "0x%" PRIx64, val);
Btw, I'm wondering why we didn't use "fprintf(control_fd, ...)" here
I remember that using read instead of fread was optimization to speed up
the buffering of logs.
For consistency I believe write is used instead fwrite.
igt_assert(ret > 2 && ret < sizeof(data));
@@ -288,7 +297,7 @@ static void init_main_thread(void)
/* Enable the logging, it may not have been enabled from boot
and so
* the relay file also wouldn't have been created.
*/
- guc_log_control(true);
+ guc_log_control(true, verbosity_level);
open_relay_file();
open_output_file();
@@ -420,7 +429,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
} while (!stop_logging);
/* Pause logging on the GuC side */
- guc_log_control(false);
+ guc_log_control(false, 0);
/* Signal flusher thread to make an exit */
capturing_stopped = 1;
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
