All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Gupta, Anshuman" <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
To: "Belgaumkar, Vinay" <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Cc: "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc/slpc: Use i915_probe_error instead of drm_err
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 16:17:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <088b0354e58447809979c545f2395141@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5853d85e-da43-5eb7-abda-a475283ff6e1@intel.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Belgaumkar, Vinay <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 8:38 PM
> To: Gupta, Anshuman <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
> Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc/slpc: Use i915_probe_error
> instead of drm_err
> 
> 
> On 4/13/2022 11:41 PM, Anshuman Gupta wrote:
> > On 2022-04-13 at 04:18:52 +0530, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> >> This will ensure we don't have false positives when we run error
> >> injection tests.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 42 ++++++++++-----------
> >>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> index b170238aa15c..639de3c10545 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> @@ -152,8 +152,8 @@ static int slpc_query_task_state(struct
> >> intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
> >>
> >>   	ret = guc_action_slpc_query(guc, offset);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret))
> > As commit logs describe, this code patch can hit, when we run error injection
> test.
> > Do we need unlikely() here?
> > Br,
> > Anshuman Gupta.
> 
> I think we still need the unlikely(). Majority of the time, we still need the
> compiler optimization.
> 
> Only in the rare case of running the error injection test will it not be needed.
Reviewed-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinay.
> 
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to query task state (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to query task state (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>
> >>   	drm_clflush_virt_range(slpc->vaddr, SLPC_PAGE_SIZE_BYTES);
> >>
> >> @@ -170,8 +170,8 @@ static int slpc_set_param(struct intel_guc_slpc
> >> *slpc, u8 id, u32 value)
> >>
> >>   	ret = guc_action_slpc_set_param(guc, id, value);
> >>   	if (ret)
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to set param %d to %u (%pe)\n",
> >> -			id, value, ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to set param %d to %u (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 id, value, ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>
> >>   	return ret;
> >>   }
> >> @@ -211,8 +211,8 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc
> *slpc, u32 freq)
> >>
> SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ,
> >>   				     freq);
> >>   		if (ret)
> >> -			drm_err(&i915->drm, "Unable to force min freq to %u:
> %d",
> >> -				freq, ret);
> >> +			i915_probe_error(i915, "Unable to force min freq to
> %u: %d",
> >> +					 freq, ret);
> >>   	}
> >>
> >>   	return ret;
> >> @@ -247,9 +247,9 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_init(struct intel_guc_slpc
> >> *slpc)
> >>
> >>   	err = intel_guc_allocate_and_map_vma(guc, size, &slpc->vma, (void
> **)&slpc->vaddr);
> >>   	if (unlikely(err)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm,
> >> -			"Failed to allocate SLPC struct (err=%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(err));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915,
> >> +				 "Failed to allocate SLPC struct (err=%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(err));
> >>   		return err;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >> @@ -316,15 +316,15 @@ static int slpc_reset(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
> >>   	ret = guc_action_slpc_reset(guc, offset);
> >>
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "SLPC reset action failed (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "SLPC reset action failed (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >>   	if (!ret) {
> >>   		if (wait_for(slpc_is_running(slpc), SLPC_RESET_TIMEOUT_MS)) {
> >> -			drm_err(&i915->drm, "SLPC not enabled! State = %s\n",
> >> -				slpc_get_state_string(slpc));
> >> +			i915_probe_error(i915, "SLPC not enabled! State =
> %s\n",
> >> +					 slpc_get_state_string(slpc));
> >>   			return -EIO;
> >>   		}
> >>   	}
> >> @@ -616,8 +616,8 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_enable(struct intel_guc_slpc
> >> *slpc)
> >>
> >>   	ret = slpc_reset(slpc);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "SLPC Reset event returned (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "SLPC Reset event returned (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >> @@ -632,24 +632,24 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_enable(struct intel_guc_slpc
> *slpc)
> >>   	/* Ignore efficient freq and set min to platform min */
> >>   	ret = slpc_ignore_eff_freq(slpc, true);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to set SLPC min to RPn (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to set SLPC min to RPn (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >>   	/* Set SLPC max limit to RP0 */
> >>   	ret = slpc_use_fused_rp0(slpc);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to set SLPC max to RP0 (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to set SLPC max to RP0
> (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >>   	/* Revert SLPC min/max to softlimits if necessary */
> >>   	ret = slpc_set_softlimits(slpc);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to set SLPC softlimits (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to set SLPC softlimits (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.35.1
> >>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Gupta, Anshuman" <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
To: "Belgaumkar, Vinay" <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Cc: "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc/slpc: Use i915_probe_error instead of drm_err
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 16:17:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <088b0354e58447809979c545f2395141@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5853d85e-da43-5eb7-abda-a475283ff6e1@intel.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Belgaumkar, Vinay <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 8:38 PM
> To: Gupta, Anshuman <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
> Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc/slpc: Use i915_probe_error
> instead of drm_err
> 
> 
> On 4/13/2022 11:41 PM, Anshuman Gupta wrote:
> > On 2022-04-13 at 04:18:52 +0530, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> >> This will ensure we don't have false positives when we run error
> >> injection tests.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 42 ++++++++++-----------
> >>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> index b170238aa15c..639de3c10545 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> @@ -152,8 +152,8 @@ static int slpc_query_task_state(struct
> >> intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
> >>
> >>   	ret = guc_action_slpc_query(guc, offset);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret))
> > As commit logs describe, this code patch can hit, when we run error injection
> test.
> > Do we need unlikely() here?
> > Br,
> > Anshuman Gupta.
> 
> I think we still need the unlikely(). Majority of the time, we still need the
> compiler optimization.
> 
> Only in the rare case of running the error injection test will it not be needed.
Reviewed-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinay.
> 
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to query task state (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to query task state (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>
> >>   	drm_clflush_virt_range(slpc->vaddr, SLPC_PAGE_SIZE_BYTES);
> >>
> >> @@ -170,8 +170,8 @@ static int slpc_set_param(struct intel_guc_slpc
> >> *slpc, u8 id, u32 value)
> >>
> >>   	ret = guc_action_slpc_set_param(guc, id, value);
> >>   	if (ret)
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to set param %d to %u (%pe)\n",
> >> -			id, value, ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to set param %d to %u (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 id, value, ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>
> >>   	return ret;
> >>   }
> >> @@ -211,8 +211,8 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc
> *slpc, u32 freq)
> >>
> SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ,
> >>   				     freq);
> >>   		if (ret)
> >> -			drm_err(&i915->drm, "Unable to force min freq to %u:
> %d",
> >> -				freq, ret);
> >> +			i915_probe_error(i915, "Unable to force min freq to
> %u: %d",
> >> +					 freq, ret);
> >>   	}
> >>
> >>   	return ret;
> >> @@ -247,9 +247,9 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_init(struct intel_guc_slpc
> >> *slpc)
> >>
> >>   	err = intel_guc_allocate_and_map_vma(guc, size, &slpc->vma, (void
> **)&slpc->vaddr);
> >>   	if (unlikely(err)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm,
> >> -			"Failed to allocate SLPC struct (err=%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(err));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915,
> >> +				 "Failed to allocate SLPC struct (err=%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(err));
> >>   		return err;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >> @@ -316,15 +316,15 @@ static int slpc_reset(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
> >>   	ret = guc_action_slpc_reset(guc, offset);
> >>
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "SLPC reset action failed (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "SLPC reset action failed (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >>   	if (!ret) {
> >>   		if (wait_for(slpc_is_running(slpc), SLPC_RESET_TIMEOUT_MS)) {
> >> -			drm_err(&i915->drm, "SLPC not enabled! State = %s\n",
> >> -				slpc_get_state_string(slpc));
> >> +			i915_probe_error(i915, "SLPC not enabled! State =
> %s\n",
> >> +					 slpc_get_state_string(slpc));
> >>   			return -EIO;
> >>   		}
> >>   	}
> >> @@ -616,8 +616,8 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_enable(struct intel_guc_slpc
> >> *slpc)
> >>
> >>   	ret = slpc_reset(slpc);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "SLPC Reset event returned (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "SLPC Reset event returned (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >> @@ -632,24 +632,24 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_enable(struct intel_guc_slpc
> *slpc)
> >>   	/* Ignore efficient freq and set min to platform min */
> >>   	ret = slpc_ignore_eff_freq(slpc, true);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to set SLPC min to RPn (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to set SLPC min to RPn (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >>   	/* Set SLPC max limit to RP0 */
> >>   	ret = slpc_use_fused_rp0(slpc);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to set SLPC max to RP0 (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to set SLPC max to RP0
> (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >>   	/* Revert SLPC min/max to softlimits if necessary */
> >>   	ret = slpc_set_softlimits(slpc);
> >>   	if (unlikely(ret)) {
> >> -		drm_err(&i915->drm, "Failed to set SLPC softlimits (%pe)\n",
> >> -			ERR_PTR(ret));
> >> +		i915_probe_error(i915, "Failed to set SLPC softlimits (%pe)\n",
> >> +				 ERR_PTR(ret));
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.35.1
> >>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-04-14 16:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-12 22:48 [PATCH] drm/i915/guc/slpc: Use i915_probe_error instead of drm_err Vinay Belgaumkar
2022-04-12 22:48 ` [Intel-gfx] " Vinay Belgaumkar
2022-04-13 19:14 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2022-04-13 20:55 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2022-04-14  6:41 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] " Anshuman Gupta
2022-04-14 15:08   ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2022-04-14 16:13     ` Jani Nikula
2022-04-14 16:17     ` Gupta, Anshuman [this message]
2022-04-14 16:17       ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-04-15 20:26 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for " Patchwork
2022-04-15 20:33   ` Matt Roper

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=088b0354e58447809979c545f2395141@intel.com \
    --to=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.