On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 18:11 -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 06:21 -0800, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
> > The value of this registers will be used to test if PSR2 is doing
> > selective update and if the number of blocks match with the
> > expected.
> >
> > v2:
> > - Using new macros
> > - Changed the string output
> >
> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > ----
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > index 5ebf0e647ac7..4e92078bc65d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > @@ -2621,10 +2621,34 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct
> > seq_file *m, void *data)
> > seq_printf(m, "Performance counter: %u\n", val);
> > }
> >
> > - if ((psr->debug & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) && !psr->psr2_enabled) {
> > - seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
> > - psr->last_entry_attempt);
> > - seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n", psr->last_exit);
> > + if (!psr->psr2_enabled) {
> > + if (psr->debug & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
> > + seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at:
> > %lld\n",
> > + psr->last_entry_attempt);
> > + seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n", psr-
> > > last_exit);
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + u8 frame;
> > +
> > + seq_puts(m, "Frame:\tPSR2 SU blocks:\n");
> > +
> > + for (frame = 0; frame < PSR2_SU_STATUS_FRAMES; frame++)
> > {
> > + u32 su_blocks;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Avoid register reads as each register
> > contains more
> > + * than one frame value
> > + */
> I don't think the comment is needed, but if you want to retain it I
> suggest explicitly saying each register contains data for three
> frames?
The last one have only 2 frames.
>
> Not sure if it matters, how about completing all the three register
> reads before printing so that we reduce the chances of crossing a
> frame
> boundary between register reads?
Hum sounds good, I will do that.
>
> > + if ((frame % 3) == 0)
> > + val = I915_READ(PSR2_SU_STATUS(frame));
> > +
> > + su_blocks = val & PSR2_SU_STATUS_MASK(frame);
> > + su_blocks = su_blocks >>
> > PSR2_SU_STATUS_SHIFT(frame);
> > + /* Only printing frames with SU blocks */
> > + if (!su_blocks)
> > + continue;
> Why not print zero if that's the number of blocks updated in a frame?
I think 8 frames with value zero are not worth to print everytime and
IGT will only care about the frame 0 but I don't see any problem in
printing it.
>
> > + seq_printf(m, "%d\t%d\n", frame, su_blocks);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > unlock:
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
