On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 18:11 -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote: > On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 06:21 -0800, José Roberto de Souza wrote: > > The value of this registers will be used to test if PSR2 is doing > > selective update and if the number of blocks match with the > > expected. > > > > v2: > > - Using new macros > > - Changed the string output > > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]> > > Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ---- > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > index 5ebf0e647ac7..4e92078bc65d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > @@ -2621,10 +2621,34 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct > > seq_file *m, void *data) > > seq_printf(m, "Performance counter: %u\n", val); > > } > > > > - if ((psr->debug & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) && !psr->psr2_enabled) { > > - seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n", > > - psr->last_entry_attempt); > > - seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n", psr->last_exit); > > + if (!psr->psr2_enabled) { > > + if (psr->debug & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) { > > + seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: > > %lld\n", > > + psr->last_entry_attempt); > > + seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n", psr- > > > last_exit); > > + } > > + } else { > > + u8 frame; > > + > > + seq_puts(m, "Frame:\tPSR2 SU blocks:\n"); > > + > > + for (frame = 0; frame < PSR2_SU_STATUS_FRAMES; frame++) > > { > > + u32 su_blocks; > > + > > + /* > > + * Avoid register reads as each register > > contains more > > + * than one frame value > > + */ > I don't think the comment is needed, but if you want to retain it I > suggest explicitly saying each register contains data for three > frames?
The last one have only 2 frames. > > Not sure if it matters, how about completing all the three register > reads before printing so that we reduce the chances of crossing a > frame > boundary between register reads? Hum sounds good, I will do that. > > > + if ((frame % 3) == 0) > > + val = I915_READ(PSR2_SU_STATUS(frame)); > > + > > + su_blocks = val & PSR2_SU_STATUS_MASK(frame); > > + su_blocks = su_blocks >> > > PSR2_SU_STATUS_SHIFT(frame); > > + /* Only printing frames with SU blocks */ > > + if (!su_blocks) > > + continue; > Why not print zero if that's the number of blocks updated in a frame? I think 8 frames with value zero are not worth to print everytime and IGT will only care about the frame 0 but I don't see any problem in printing it. > > > + seq_printf(m, "%d\t%d\n", frame, su_blocks); > > + } > > } > > > > unlock:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
