On 29/04/15 23:13, yu....@intel.com wrote:
> From: Alex Dai <yu....@intel.com>
>
> Allocate a gem obj to hold GuC log data. Also a debugfs interface
> (i915_guc_log_dump) is provided to print out the log content.
>
> Issue: VIZ-4884
> Signed-off-by: Alex Dai <yu....@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++----
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 1 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h | 1 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c | 64
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 5 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index f12bbee..f47714c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -2332,14 +2332,14 @@ static int i915_guc_load_status_info(struct seq_file
> *m, void *data)
>
> tmp = I915_READ(GUC_STATUS);
>
> - seq_puts(m, "\nResponse from GuC:\n");
> + seq_printf(m, "\nGuC status 0x%08x:\n", tmp);
> seq_printf(m, "\tBootrom status = 0x%x\n",
> (tmp & GS_BOOTROM_MASK) >> GS_BOOTROM_SHIFT);
> seq_printf(m, "\tuKernel status = 0x%x\n",
> (tmp & GS_UKERNEL_MASK) >> GS_UKERNEL_SHIFT);
> seq_printf(m, "\tMIA Core status = 0x%x\n",
> (tmp & GS_MIA_MASK) >> GS_MIA_SHIFT);
> - seq_puts(m, "Scratch registers value:\n");
> + seq_puts(m, "\nScratch registers value:\n");
> for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
> seq_printf(m, "\t%2d: \t0x%x\n", i, I915_READ(SOFT_SCRATCH(i)));
>
> @@ -2352,13 +2352,11 @@ static int i915_guc_info(struct seq_file *m, void
> *data)
> struct drm_device *dev = node->minor->dev;
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> struct intel_guc guc;
> - struct i915_guc_client client;
> + struct i915_guc_client client = { 0 };
This line gives a warning, because the preceding patch [12/14],
added a new first member which is not a scalar, so can't be initialised
with a zero.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
> index 892f974..f8065cf 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> #define GUC_WQ_SIZE (PAGE_SIZE * 2)
>
> struct i915_guc_client {
> + spinlock_t wq_lock;
> struct drm_i915_gem_object *client_obj;
> u32 priority;
> off_t doorbell_offset;
GCC allows '{}' as a set-everything-to-default initialiser, but kernel
coding standards may not. Or, we could put in an explicit member name, i.e.
+ struct i915_guc_client client = { .client_obj = 0 };
But in any case I was thinking of reordering the i915_guc_client
structure members for better packing, and/or better logical grouping
and/or ordering. So the client_obj member may well end up at the top,
and then the struct initialisation will work as-is :)
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
