Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 18/18] drm/i915/runtime_pm: Prefer drm_WARN* over WARN*

From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 18/18] drm/i915/runtime_pm: Prefer drm_WARN* over WARN*
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 12:48:09 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200421094809.GB29723@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87imhtz1hz.fsf@intel.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:28:24AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 
> Imre, please check the one question inline.
> 
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2020, Pankaj Bharadiya <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@intel.com> wrote:
> > struct drm_device specific drm_WARN* macros include device information
> > in the backtrace, so we know what device the warnings originate from.
> >
> > Prefer drm_WARN* over WARN*.
> >
> > Conversion is done with below semantic patch:
> >
> > @@
> > identifier func, T;
> > @@
> > func(struct intel_runtime_pm *T,...) {
> > + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = container_of(T, struct drm_i915_private, runtime_pm);
> > <+...
> > (
> > -WARN(
> > +drm_WARN(&i915->drm,
> > ...)
> > |
> > -WARN_ON(
> > +drm_WARN_ON(&i915->drm,
> > ...)
> > |
> > -WARN_ONCE(
> > +drm_WARN_ONCE(&i915->drm,
> > ...)
> > |
> > -WARN_ON_ONCE(
> > +drm_WARN_ON_ONCE(&i915->drm,
> > ...)
> > )
> > ...+>
> >
> > }
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Bharadiya <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > index ad719c9602af..31ccd0559c55 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c
> > @@ -116,6 +116,9 @@ track_intel_runtime_pm_wakeref(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm)
> >  static void untrack_intel_runtime_pm_wakeref(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm,
> >  					     depot_stack_handle_t stack)
> >  {
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = container_of(rpm,
> > +						     struct drm_i915_private,
> > +						     runtime_pm);
> 
> Is this a dependency we want to add? Should struct intel_runtime_pm be
> allowed to be elsewhere than struct i915?

For convenience a pointer to intel_runtime_pm is stored in intel_uncore
and intel_wakeref, but there is only one instance of it. So looks ok to
me to use container_of() on the pointer.

> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> >  	unsigned long flags, n;
> >  	bool found = false;
> >  
> > @@ -134,9 +137,9 @@ static void untrack_intel_runtime_pm_wakeref(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm,
> >  	}
> >  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rpm->debug.lock, flags);
> >  
> > -	if (WARN(!found,
> > -		 "Unmatched wakeref (tracking %lu), count %u\n",
> > -		 rpm->debug.count, atomic_read(&rpm->wakeref_count))) {
> > +	if (drm_WARN(&i915->drm, !found,
> > +		     "Unmatched wakeref (tracking %lu), count %u\n",
> > +		     rpm->debug.count, atomic_read(&rpm->wakeref_count))) {
> >  		char *buf;
> >  
> >  		buf = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > @@ -355,10 +358,14 @@ intel_runtime_pm_release(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm, int wakelock)
> >  static intel_wakeref_t __intel_runtime_pm_get(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm,
> >  					      bool wakelock)
> >  {
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = container_of(rpm,
> > +						     struct drm_i915_private,
> > +						     runtime_pm);
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> >  	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(rpm->kdev);
> > -	WARN_ONCE(ret < 0, "pm_runtime_get_sync() failed: %d\n", ret);
> > +	drm_WARN_ONCE(&i915->drm, ret < 0,
> > +		      "pm_runtime_get_sync() failed: %d\n", ret);
> >  
> >  	intel_runtime_pm_acquire(rpm, wakelock);
> >  
> > @@ -539,6 +546,9 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_put(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm, intel_wakeref_t wref)
> >   */
> >  void intel_runtime_pm_enable(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm)
> >  {
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = container_of(rpm,
> > +						     struct drm_i915_private,
> > +						     runtime_pm);
> >  	struct device *kdev = rpm->kdev;
> >  
> >  	/*
> > @@ -565,7 +575,8 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_enable(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm)
> >  
> >  		pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(kdev);
> >  		ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(kdev);
> > -		WARN(ret < 0, "pm_runtime_get_sync() failed: %d\n", ret);
> > +		drm_WARN(&i915->drm, ret < 0,
> > +			 "pm_runtime_get_sync() failed: %d\n", ret);
> >  	} else {
> >  		pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(kdev);
> >  	}
> > @@ -580,11 +591,14 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_enable(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm)
> >  
> >  void intel_runtime_pm_disable(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm)
> >  {
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = container_of(rpm,
> > +						     struct drm_i915_private,
> > +						     runtime_pm);
> >  	struct device *kdev = rpm->kdev;
> >  
> >  	/* Transfer rpm ownership back to core */
> > -	WARN(pm_runtime_get_sync(kdev) < 0,
> > -	     "Failed to pass rpm ownership back to core\n");
> > +	drm_WARN(&i915->drm, pm_runtime_get_sync(kdev) < 0,
> > +		 "Failed to pass rpm ownership back to core\n");
> >  
> >  	pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(kdev);
> >  
> > @@ -594,12 +608,15 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_disable(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm)
> >  
> >  void intel_runtime_pm_driver_release(struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm)
> >  {
> > +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = container_of(rpm,
> > +						     struct drm_i915_private,
> > +						     runtime_pm);
> >  	int count = atomic_read(&rpm->wakeref_count);
> >  
> > -	WARN(count,
> > -	     "i915 raw-wakerefs=%d wakelocks=%d on cleanup\n",
> > -	     intel_rpm_raw_wakeref_count(count),
> > -	     intel_rpm_wakelock_count(count));
> > +	drm_WARN(&i915->drm, count,
> > +		 "i915 raw-wakerefs=%d wakelocks=%d on cleanup\n",
> > +		 intel_rpm_raw_wakeref_count(count),
> > +		 intel_rpm_wakelock_count(count));
> >  
> >  	untrack_all_intel_runtime_pm_wakerefs(rpm);
> >  }
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx