On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 05:00:38PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:30:55PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >Currently we just define the display tracpoints with > >TRACE_SYSTEM i915. However the code gets included separately > >in i915 and xe, and now both modules are competing for the > >same tracpoints. Apparently whichever module is loaded first > >gets the tracepoints and the other guy is left with nothing. > > > >Give each module its own set of display tracpoints so that > >things work even when both modules are loaded. > > > >This one had me stumped for a bit when after a reboot I lost > >all i915 display tracpoints (on account of the new kernel > >also including xe, and something also ended up loading it > >before I manually loaded i915). > > > >Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >--- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_trace.h | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_trace.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_trace.h > >index 54a6e2a46b82..0e10c2856058 100644 > >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_trace.h > >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_trace.h > >@@ -4,7 +4,11 @@ > > */ > > > > #undef TRACE_SYSTEM > >+#ifdef I915 > > #define TRACE_SYSTEM i915 > >+#else > >+#define TRACE_SYSTEM xe > > looking forward to the day this will be intel_display or i915_display, intel_display might be the right choice at that point, but yeah can't go there yet. > but until then > > Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> Ta. > > is tracpoints above intentional? I'd say it's a typo, but it's repeated > 4 times. Apparently just bad muscle memory on my part. > > Lucas De Marchi > > >+#endif > > > > #if !defined(__INTEL_DISPLAY_TRACE_H__) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ) > > #define __INTEL_DISPLAY_TRACE_H__ > >-- > >2.45.3 > > -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
