On 3/2/2018 5:22 PM, Michał Winiarski wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 04:39:38PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
On 2/27/2018 6:22 PM, Michał Winiarski 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>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 11 ++----
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 75
+++++++++++++++++++-----------------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h | 3 +-
3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index 33fbf3965309..58983cafaece 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -2500,13 +2500,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data, u64
*val)
Should we name this i915_guc_log_level_get instead? and other related
functions too?
I chose symmetry here, note that the debugfs file is still named
i915_guc_log_control at this point. This changes later in the series though.
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
- if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
+ if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv))
return -ENODEV;
- if (!dev_priv->guc.log.vma)
- return -EINVAL;
-
- *val = i915_modparams.guc_log_level;
+ *val = intel_guc_log_control_get(&dev_priv->guc);
return 0;
}
@@ -2515,10 +2512,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
- if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
+ if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv))
return -ENODEV;
- return intel_guc_log_control(&dev_priv->guc, val);
+ return intel_guc_log_control_set(&dev_priv->guc, val);
}
DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_guc_log_control_fops,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
index 7b5074e2120c..22a05320817b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
+++ 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)
Should we be passing guc_log as parameter and implement guc_log_to_guc()
function.
This is the top-level interface exported for GuC users. In other words - callers
of this function shouldn't have to know about struct guc_log (and the fact that
it's located inside struct intel_guc).
+{
+ 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)
+#define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) ? x - 1 : 0)
This is bit misleading, can we make this macro return -1 if logging is to be
disabled. That way guc_log_control can be invoked with
single signed 32bit parameter.
Note that guc_log_control is the function operating directly on GuC interface.
This Host2GuC action really takes 3 arguments (2 parameters here) - enable,
default_logging_enable, verbosity.
As a consequence, I'd like to avoid placing any logic there. The macros are
taking care of translation from guc_log_level modparam to values understood by
GuC (host2guc params).
I agree that the naming is confusing here.
I'll go with LOG_LEVEL_TO_ENABLED(x) and LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) in second
spin as suggested by Michał.
+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.
+ */
+ if (GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN ||
This check seems unnecessary as we currently don't have negative output for
G_L_L_T_V macro.
If we add negative value there, will need to remove this check.
Yeah, agree. That's an error on my part, I wanted to do input validation here.
This should probably be something more like:
if (val < VERBOSITY_TO_LOG_LEVEL(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN) ||
I think we should drop the min side check because val will never be
negative and if we want to keep the check
then it should be
#define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_DISABED 0
if (val < GUC_LOG_LEVEL_DISABLED) ||
Since we want to invoke guc_log_control to disable the logging.
val > VERBOSITY_TO_LOG_LEVEL(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX))
-Michał
+ GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) > 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);
- 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);
--
Thanks,
Sagar
--
Thanks,
Sagar
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
