On 1/24/2018 3:41 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-01-24 10:07:12)
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:09:10 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble
<sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
i915_guc_log_control is GuC interface and GuC APIs that are not user
facing should be named with "intel_guc" prefix hence we change name to
intel_guc_log_control. Also changed the parameter to intel_guc struct.
Suggested-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
with small bikeshed below
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 5 +++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 4 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index b45be0d..c10a9e8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -2467,14 +2467,15 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data,
u64 *val)
static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
+ struct intel_guc *guc = &dev_priv->guc;
if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
return -ENODEV;
- if (!dev_priv->guc.log.vma)
+ if (!guc->log.vma)
return -EINVAL;
Hmm, as this looks like internal check, maybe better to move
it into intel_guc_log_control() ?
Also, I'm not sure that lack of internal vma should be reported
as -EINVAL
Right, it's not reporting that the user's parameter was wrong, just that
the device wasn't initialised, so ENODEV seems appropriate.
Thanks for the review and inputs.
-Chris
--
Thanks,
Sagar
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
