Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-07-26 10:48:31) > On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:21:57 +0200, Chris Wilson > <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-07-26 05:47:03) > >> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:44:08 +0200, Chris Wilson > >> <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-07-25 21:51:06) > >> >> We are already storing runtime value of log level in private > >> >> field, so there is no need to modify modparam. > >> > > >> > There is an aspect of communicating the clamped value back to the > >> user. > >> > Does that have any value or alternative? > >> > >> Actual (clamped or default) value of the GuC log level is exposed in > >> i915_guc_log_level debugfs entry. User can modify it from there too. > > > > Why? :) I fail to see why we have two methods of setting a variable, if > > we want a callback on modparam we can supply a param_ops.set()... > > Single modparam value may not work in the future as we may have to support > multiple devices on single platform. There will be more similar changes > around other guc modparams in a moment. Exactly, and debugfs doesn't exist. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
