On Wed, 08 Feb 2023, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
The opposite, the debugfs should be added in this file instead. :)
See my reply.
BR,
Jani.
>
> 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);
>> }
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
