On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:21:12AM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> Some of the DRM_NOTE messages are just using "uC" without specifying
> which uc they are related to. We can be more user friendly.
>
> v2: moved to the header (Joonas)
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>
> Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hi...@intel.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 6 ++++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
> index c767dc3..e259cae 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
> @@ -182,10 +182,12 @@ static void fetch_uc_fw(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv,
> }
>
> if (uc_fw->major_ver_wanted == 0 && uc_fw->minor_ver_wanted == 0) {
> - DRM_NOTE("Skipping uC firmware version check\n");
> + DRM_NOTE("Skipping %s firmware version check\n",
> + intel_uc_fw_type_repr(uc_fw->type));
> } else if (uc_fw->major_ver_found != uc_fw->major_ver_wanted ||
> uc_fw->minor_ver_found < uc_fw->minor_ver_wanted) {
> - DRM_NOTE("uC firmware version %d.%d, required %d.%d\n",
> + DRM_NOTE("%s firmware version %d.%d, required %d.%d\n",
> + intel_uc_fw_type_repr(uc_fw->type),
> uc_fw->major_ver_found, uc_fw->minor_ver_found,
> uc_fw->major_ver_wanted, uc_fw->minor_ver_wanted);
> err = -ENOEXEC;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
> index f524387..7139e31 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
> @@ -125,6 +125,20 @@ enum intel_uc_fw_type {
> INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_HUC
> };
>
> +/* User-friendly representation of an enum */
> +static inline const char *intel_uc_fw_type_repr(enum intel_uc_fw_type type)
> +{
> + switch (type) {
> + case INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_GUC:
> + return "GuC";
> + case INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_HUC:
> + return "HuC";
> + default:
> + MISSING_CASE(type);
> + return "<invalid>";
> + }
Do we want to write these (when we have a clear enum type):
switch (type) {
case INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_GUC: return "GuC";
case INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_HUC: return "HuC";
}
MISSING_CASE(type);
return "uC";
The hope being that the compiler will give us a warning before we
encounter the runtime WARN.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
