On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:52:16 +0100, Michał Winiarski <michal.winiar...@intel.com> wrote:

We plan to decouple log runtime (mapping + relay) from verbosity control.
Let's tidy the code now to reduce the churn in the following patches.

Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiar...@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospu...@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>
Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kam...@intel.com>
---

/snip/

+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
@@ -657,52 +657,55 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc)
        i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&guc->log.vma);
 }
-int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val)
+int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc)

Can we add kernel-doc for this new function?

+{
+       GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma);
+       GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0);
+
+       return i915_modparams.guc_log_level;
+}
+
+#define GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x)          (x > 0)

1) x must be wrapped into (x)
2) GUC_LOG_ prefix is misleading, maybe LOG_LEVEL_TO_ENABLED()

+#define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) ? x - 1 : 0)

1) x must be wrapped into (x)
2) try to avoid double evaluation of x

+int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 val)
 {
        struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc);
-       bool enable_logging = control_val > 0;
-       u32 verbosity;
        int ret;
-       if (!guc->log.vma)
-               return -ENODEV;
+       BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN != 0);
+       GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma);
+       GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0);
-       BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN);
-       if (control_val > 1 + GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX)
+       /*
+        * GuC is recognizing log levels starting from 0 to max, we're using 0
+        * as indication that logging should be disablded.

typo

+        */
+       if (GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN ||
+           GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX)

try to use helper variable easier read:

int verbosity = LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val);
if (verbosity < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN || verbosity > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX)

                return -EINVAL;
-       /* This combination doesn't make sense & won't have any effect */
-       if (!enable_logging && !i915_modparams.guc_log_level)
-               return 0;
+       mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
-       verbosity = enable_logging ? control_val - 1 : 0;
+       if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level == val) {
+               ret = 0;
+               goto out_unlock;
+       }
-       ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
-       if (ret)
-               return ret;
        intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
-       ret = guc_log_control(guc, enable_logging, verbosity);
+       ret = guc_log_control(guc, GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val),
+                             GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
        intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
-       mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
+       if (ret)
+               goto out_unlock;
-       if (ret < 0) {
-               DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_logging_control action failed %d\n", ret);
-               return ret;
-       }
+       i915_modparams.guc_log_level = val;
-       if (enable_logging) {
-               i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 1 + verbosity;
+       mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
-               /*
-                * If log was disabled at boot time, then the relay channel file
-                * wouldn't have been created by now and interrupts also would
-                * not have been enabled. Try again now, just in case.
-                */
+       if (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && !guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) {
                ret = guc_log_late_setup(guc);
-               if (ret < 0) {
-                       DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC log late setup failed %d\n", ret);

why do you want to remove all these diagnostic messages?

-                       return ret;
-               }
+               if (ret)
+                       goto out;
                /* GuC logging is currently the only user of Guc2Host 
interrupts */
                mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
@@ -710,7 +713,7 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val)
                gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv);
                intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
                mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
-       } else {
+       } else if (!GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) {
                /*
                 * Once logging is disabled, GuC won't generate logs & send an
                 * interrupt. But there could be some data in the log buffer
@@ -718,11 +721,13 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val)
                 * buffer state and then collect the left over logs.
                 */
                guc_flush_logs(guc);
-
-               /* As logging is disabled, update log level to reflect that */
-               i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 0;
        }
+       return 0;
+
+out_unlock:
+       mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
+out:
        return ret;
 }
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h
index dab0e949567a..141ce9ca22ce 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h
@@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc);
 void intel_guc_log_init_early(struct intel_guc *guc);
 int intel_guc_log_relay_create(struct intel_guc *guc);
 void intel_guc_log_relay_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc);
-int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val);
+int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc);
+int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val);
 void i915_guc_log_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
 void i915_guc_log_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to