On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:26 +0100, Michał Winiarski
<michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:37:15PM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
We should avoid using guc_log prefix for functions that don't
operate on GuC log, but rather request action from the GuC.
Better to use guc_action prefix.
Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 16 +++++++++-------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
index b9c7bd7..457168a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
* registers value.
*/
-static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
+static int guc_action_flush_log_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
u32 action[] = {
INTEL_GUC_ACTION_LOG_BUFFER_FILE_FLUSH_COMPLETE
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc
*guc)
return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
}
-static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
+static int guc_action_flush_log(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
u32 action[] = {
INTEL_GUC_ACTION_FORCE_LOG_BUFFER_FLUSH,
@@ -58,7 +58,8 @@ static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
}
-static int guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable, u32
verbosity)
+static int guc_action_enable_log(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable,
+ u32 verbosity)
Let's hide the fact that the actual action is called "ENABLE_LOGGING",
and stick
with guc_action_log_control, especially since we're using
guc_log_control union,
and the action itself is also used for verbosity (and default log...
more than
just enable/disable switch).
Hmm, I think that using action name as base for function is right thing.
If in your opinion action name is not correct, we should start with action
rename first.
And I would rather prefer to drop definition of union guc_log_control
and replace it with set of SHIFT/MASK macros as we do for other bitfields.
Also using actual action name as base for new function name, we could
avoid having yet another [log|control|log] function name permutation.
But I'm flexible ;)
With that:
Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
-Michał
{
union guc_log_control control_val = {
{
@@ -525,7 +526,7 @@ static void guc_log_capture_logs(struct intel_guc
*guc)
* time, so get/put should be really quick.
*/
intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
- guc_log_flush_complete(guc);
+ guc_action_flush_log_complete(guc);
intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
}
@@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static void guc_flush_logs(struct intel_guc *guc)
/* Ask GuC to update the log buffer state */
intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
- guc_log_flush(guc);
+ guc_action_flush_log(guc);
intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
/* GuC would have updated log buffer by now, so capture it */
@@ -639,10 +640,11 @@ int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc
*guc, u64 val)
}
intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
- ret = guc_log_control(guc, enabled, LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
+ ret = guc_action_enable_log(guc, enabled,
LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
if (ret) {
- DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_log_control action failed %d\n", ret);
+ DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC action to %s log failed (%d)\n",
+ enabled ? "enable" : "disable", ret);
goto out_unlock;
}
--
1.9.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
