On Tue, 2023-10-24 at 15:12 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Luca Coelho <luca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-10-24 at 08:22 +0000, Hogander, Jouni wrote: > > > On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 17:00 +0300, Luca Coelho wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 14:16 +0300, Jouni Högander wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h | 2 +- > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c | 3 +++ > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h | 1 + > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 3 --- > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h | 1 - > > > > > 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > > > > > index ba3548f9768d..bc95fb377386 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > > > > > @@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ bool assert_port_valid(struct > > > > > drm_i915_private > > > > > *i915, enum port port); > > > > > struct drm_device *drm = &(__i915)- > > > > > > drm; \ > > > > > int __ret_warn_on = > > > > > !!(condition); \ > > > > > if > > > > > (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) > > > > > \ > > > > > - if (!drm_WARN(drm, __i915- > > > > > > params.verbose_state_checks, format)) \ > > > > > + if (!drm_WARN(drm, __i915- > > > > > > display.params.verbose_state_checks, format)) \ > > > > > drm_err(drm, > > > > > format); \ > > > > > unlikely(__ret_warn_on); > > > > > > > > > > \ > > > > > }) > > > > > diff --git > > > > > a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c > > > > > index 06e68c7fec1c..e86766639396 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c > > > > > @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ > > > > > intel_display_param_named_unsafe(force_reset_modeset_test, > > > > > bool, > > > > > 0400, > > > > > intel_display_param_named(disable_display, bool, 0400, > > > > > "Disable display (default: false)"); > > > > > > > > > > +intel_display_param_named(verbose_state_checks, bool, 0400, > > > > > + "Enable verbose logs (ie. WARN_ON()) in case of > > > > > unexpected > > > > > hw state conditions."); > > > > > + > > > > > intel_display_param_named_unsafe(enable_fbc, int, 0400, > > > > > "Enable frame buffer compression for power savings " > > > > > "(default: -1 (use per-chip default))"); > > > > > diff --git > > > > > a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h > > > > > index 60d9c3d59fe4..b35443f51375 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h > > > > > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct drm_i915_private; > > > > > param(bool, load_detect_test, false, 0600) \ > > > > > param(bool, force_reset_modeset_test, false, 0600) \ > > > > > param(bool, disable_display, false, 0400) \ > > > > > + param(bool, verbose_state_checks, true, 0) \ > > > > > > > > Why is this one 0? Why can't we even read it? > > > > > > I found this comment in older commit message written by Jani > > > Nikula: > > > > > > "0 mode will bypass debugfs creation. Use it for > > > verbose_state_checks > > > which will need special attention in follow-up work." > > > > This sounds pretty odd, why wouldn't we want it to be even read? > > I *think* I remember why. > > When I added the device parameters, I915_STATE_WARN(), the only user > of > verbose_state_checks, did not have the i915 parameter yet. So it > could > not access the device parameter. > > Thus the verbose_state_checks *module* parameter had to have 0600 > mode, > and modifying that runtime meant that the *device* parameter, even as > read-only, would have gone out of sync and shown a different value. > > I only added the i915 parameter to I915_STATE_WARN() last May, but > clearly did not follow through with the parameter change. > > From now on, it should use the device param like the rest of the > code, > it should have a mutable debugfs file, and the module parameter > should > be 0400. Ok, I will still do this change and resend. BR, Jouni Högander > > > BR, > Jani. > > > > > > In any case, it's not related to this patch, so: > > > > Reviewed-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Luca. > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel
