On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:50:46 +0200, Sujaritha Sundaresan
<sujaritha.sundare...@intel.com> wrote:
Unifying the various seq_puts messages in debugfs to the simplest one for
feature support.
v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha)
v3: Re-factoring code as per review (Michal)
v4: Rebase
v5: Split from following patch
v6: Re-factoring code (Michal, Sagar)
Clarifying commit message (Sagar)
v7: Generalizing subject to drm/i915 (Sagar)
Suggested by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundare...@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>
Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.sriva...@intel.com>
Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.ma...@intel.com>
Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kam...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index 40287e9..ac25d63 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -1641,7 +1641,7 @@ static int i915_fbc_status(struct seq_file *m,
void *unused)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
if (!HAS_FBC(dev_priv)) {
- seq_puts(m, "FBC unsupported on this chipset\n");
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
}
@@ -1809,7 +1809,7 @@ static int i915_ring_freq_table(struct seq_file
*m, void *unused)
unsigned int max_gpu_freq, min_gpu_freq;
if (!HAS_LLC(dev_priv)) {
- seq_puts(m, "unsupported on this chipset\n");
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
}
@@ -2361,8 +2361,11 @@ static int i915_huc_load_status_info(struct
seq_file *m, void *data)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
struct intel_uc_fw *huc_fw = &dev_priv->huc.fw;
- if (!HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
+ if (!HAS_HUC_UCODE(dev_priv)) {
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
+ }
+
seq_puts(m, "HuC firmware status:\n");
seq_printf(m, "\tpath: %s\n", huc_fw->path);
@@ -2394,8 +2397,11 @@ static int i915_guc_load_status_info(struct
seq_file *m, void *data)
struct intel_uc_fw *guc_fw = &dev_priv->guc.fw;
u32 tmp, i;
- if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv))
+ if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev_priv)) {
Maybe now is a good time to change condition into HAS_GUC ?
Same for the earlier HAS_HUC
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
+ }
+
seq_printf(m, "GuC firmware status:\n");
seq_printf(m, "\tpath: %s\n",
@@ -2679,7 +2685,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m,
void *data)
bool enabled = false;
if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv)) {
- seq_puts(m, "PSR not supported\n");
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
}
@@ -3546,7 +3552,7 @@ static void drrs_status_per_crtc(struct seq_file
*m,
mutex_lock(&drrs->mutex);
/* DRRS Supported */
- seq_puts(m, "\tDRRS Supported: Yes\n");
+ seq_puts(m, "supported\n");
/* disable_drrs() will make drrs->dp NULL */
if (!drrs->dp) {
@@ -3578,7 +3584,7 @@ static void drrs_status_per_crtc(struct seq_file
*m,
mutex_unlock(&drrs->mutex);
} else {
/* DRRS not supported. Print the VBT parameter*/
- seq_puts(m, "\tDRRS Supported : No");
+ seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
}
seq_puts(m, "\n");
}
Hmm, the goal of this unification was to provide consistent output
from those entries that have early return:
if (!HAS_XXX(dev_priv)) {
seq_puts(m, "not supported\n");
return 0;
}
but this drrs_status_per_crts function is different, so I'm not
sure that unified approach can be applied here
Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
