On Fri, 19 Aug 2022, John Harrison <john.c.harrison@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 8/19/2022 03:45, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> It is useful to be able to match GuC events to kernel events when
>>> looking at the GuC log. That requires being able to convert GuC
>>> timestamps to kernel time. So, when dumping error captures and/or GuC
>>> logs, include a stamp in both time zones plus the clock frequency.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h | 2 ++
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h | 2 ++
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_log.c | 2 ++
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.h | 3 +++
>>> 6 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h
>>> index 60d6eb5f245b7..fc7979bd91db5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h
>>> @@ -1007,6 +1007,8 @@
>>> #define GEN11_LSN_UNSLCVC_GAFS_HALF_CL2_MAXALLOC (1 << 9)
>>> #define GEN11_LSN_UNSLCVC_GAFS_HALF_SF_MAXALLOC (1 << 7)
>>>
>>> +#define GUCPMTIMESTAMP _MMIO(0xc3e8)
>>> +
>>> #define __GEN9_RCS0_MOCS0 0xc800
>>> #define GEN9_GFX_MOCS(i) _MMIO(__GEN9_RCS0_MOCS0 + (i) * 4)
>>> #define __GEN9_VCS0_MOCS0 0xc900
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c
>>> index 2706a8c650900..ab4aacc516aa4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c
>>> @@ -389,6 +389,25 @@ void intel_guc_write_params(struct intel_guc *guc)
>>> intel_uncore_forcewake_put(uncore, FORCEWAKE_GT);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +void intel_guc_dump_time_info(struct intel_guc *guc, struct drm_printer *p)
>>> +{
>>> + struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
>>> + intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
>>> + u32 stamp = 0;
>>> + u64 ktime;
>>> +
>>> + intel_device_info_print_runtime(RUNTIME_INFO(gt->i915), p);
>> Why does this function print runtime info alone? Seems kind of random,
>> considering what intel_device_info_print_runtime() actually
>> prints. Should it print both device info and runtime info, or nothing at
>> all?
> Hmm. That was added specifically to print the rawclk value (and only for
> the rawclk value) because that was the frequency that the GuC time stamp
> register ticks at. I think we later worked out that the CS frequency was
> more correct. Hence printing gt->clock_frequency lower down. I guess I
> forgot to go back and remove the rawclk print, though.
>
> So yeah, it can be removed.
Could you r-b the patch [1] doing just that please?
BR,
Jani.
[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/b395ac4c909042f5daabf29959d8733993545aa2.1660910433.git.jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
