On Mon, 2022-12-05 at 18:04 -0800, Alan Previn Teres Alexis wrote: > On Wed, 2022-07-20 at 12:08 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > On Mon, 09 May 2022 14:01:51 -0700, Alan Previn wrote: > > > > > > All other GuC Relay Logging debugfs handles including recent > > > additions are under the 'i915/gt/uc/path' so let's also move > > > 'guc_log_relay_chan' to its proper home > Alan:[snip] > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_log.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_log.c > > > index 793a06a16874..f6578565fed6 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_log.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_log.c > > > @@ -419,8 +419,11 @@ static int guc_log_relay_create(struct intel_guc_log *log) > > > */ > > > n_subbufs = intel_guc_log_relay_subbuf_count(log); > > > > > > + if (!guc->dbgfs_node) > > > + return -ENOENT; > > > > Once again, why is this check needed? The patch is otherwise fine. > > > > Because on i915 upstream today, we do have a code path where that dbgfs_node is not being populated and i assume that > would be the case if config file disables debugfs? And without that we don't support guc-relay-logging. > Alan: Scratch that - its not needed.
