Hi Swati,
[...]
> +static void intel_fifo_underrun_inc_count(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> + bool is_cpu_fifo)
I'm not a big fan of the true/false parameters in functions. I
actually hate them because it's never clear from the caller what
the true/false means.
Isn't it clear to just have some wrappers
#define intel_fifo_underrun_inc_cpu_count(...)
#define intel_fifo_underrun_inc_cph_count(...)
or similar?
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> + if (is_cpu_fifo)
> + crtc->cpu_fifo_underrun_count++;
> + else
> + crtc->pch_fifo_underrun_count++;
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> static void i9xx_check_fifo_underruns(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> {
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(crtc->base.dev);
> @@ -103,6 +114,7 @@ static void i9xx_check_fifo_underruns(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> intel_de_write(dev_priv, reg, enable_mask | PIPE_FIFO_UNDERRUN_STATUS);
> intel_de_posting_read(dev_priv, reg);
>
> + intel_fifo_underrun_inc_count(crtc, true);
> trace_intel_cpu_fifo_underrun(dev_priv, crtc->pipe);
> drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "pipe %c underrun\n", pipe_name(crtc->pipe));
> }
> @@ -156,6 +168,7 @@ static void ivb_check_fifo_underruns(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> intel_de_write(dev_priv, GEN7_ERR_INT, ERR_INT_FIFO_UNDERRUN(pipe));
> intel_de_posting_read(dev_priv, GEN7_ERR_INT);
>
> + intel_fifo_underrun_inc_count(crtc, true);
> trace_intel_cpu_fifo_underrun(dev_priv, pipe);
> drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "fifo underrun on pipe %c\n", pipe_name(pipe));
> }
> @@ -244,6 +257,7 @@ static void cpt_check_pch_fifo_underruns(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> SERR_INT_TRANS_FIFO_UNDERRUN(pch_transcoder));
> intel_de_posting_read(dev_priv, SERR_INT);
>
> + intel_fifo_underrun_inc_count(crtc, false);
> trace_intel_pch_fifo_underrun(dev_priv, pch_transcoder);
> drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "pch fifo underrun on pch transcoder %c\n",
> pipe_name(pch_transcoder));
> @@ -286,6 +300,11 @@ static bool __intel_set_cpu_fifo_underrun_reporting(struct drm_device *dev,
>
> old = !crtc->cpu_fifo_underrun_disabled;
> crtc->cpu_fifo_underrun_disabled = !enable;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> + /* don't reset count in fifo underrun irq path */
> + if (!in_irq() && !enable)
> + crtc->cpu_fifo_underrun_count = 0;
> +#endif
>
> if (HAS_GMCH(dev_priv))
> i9xx_set_fifo_underrun_reporting(dev, pipe, enable, old);
> @@ -365,6 +384,11 @@ bool intel_set_pch_fifo_underrun_reporting(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>
> old = !crtc->pch_fifo_underrun_disabled;
> crtc->pch_fifo_underrun_disabled = !enable;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> + /* don't reset count in fifo underrun irq path */
> + if (!in_irq() && !enable)
> + crtc->pch_fifo_underrun_count = 0;
> +#endif
All these ifdefs are a bit ugly. Can we put all these stuff
inside the debugfs.c file that is compiled only if DEBUG_FS is
configured?
Andi
>
> if (HAS_PCH_IBX(dev_priv))
> ibx_set_fifo_underrun_reporting(&dev_priv->drm,
> @@ -434,6 +458,7 @@ void intel_cpu_fifo_underrun_irq_handler(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> drm_err(&dev_priv->drm, "CPU pipe %c FIFO underrun\n", pipe_name(pipe));
> }
>
> + intel_fifo_underrun_inc_count(crtc, true);
> intel_fbc_handle_fifo_underrun_irq(dev_priv);
> }
