* [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions
@ 2018-03-14 18:37 Michal Wajdeczko
2018-03-14 19:11 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
2018-03-15 15:57 ` [PATCH] " Michał Winiarski
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michal Wajdeczko @ 2018-03-14 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx
We should avoid using guc_log prefix for functions that don't
operate on GuC log, but rather request action from the GuC.
Better to use guc_action prefix.
Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 16 +++++++++-------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
index b9c7bd7..457168a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
* registers value.
*/
-static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
+static int guc_action_flush_log_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
u32 action[] = {
INTEL_GUC_ACTION_LOG_BUFFER_FILE_FLUSH_COMPLETE
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
}
-static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
+static int guc_action_flush_log(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
u32 action[] = {
INTEL_GUC_ACTION_FORCE_LOG_BUFFER_FLUSH,
@@ -58,7 +58,8 @@ static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
}
-static int guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable, u32 verbosity)
+static int guc_action_enable_log(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable,
+ u32 verbosity)
{
union guc_log_control control_val = {
{
@@ -525,7 +526,7 @@ static void guc_log_capture_logs(struct intel_guc *guc)
* time, so get/put should be really quick.
*/
intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
- guc_log_flush_complete(guc);
+ guc_action_flush_log_complete(guc);
intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
}
@@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static void guc_flush_logs(struct intel_guc *guc)
/* Ask GuC to update the log buffer state */
intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
- guc_log_flush(guc);
+ guc_action_flush_log(guc);
intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
/* GuC would have updated log buffer by now, so capture it */
@@ -639,10 +640,11 @@ int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 val)
}
intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
- ret = guc_log_control(guc, enabled, LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
+ ret = guc_action_enable_log(guc, enabled, LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
if (ret) {
- DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_log_control action failed %d\n", ret);
+ DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC action to %s log failed (%d)\n",
+ enabled ? "enable" : "disable", ret);
goto out_unlock;
}
--
1.9.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions
2018-03-14 18:37 [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions Michal Wajdeczko
@ 2018-03-14 19:11 ` Patchwork
2018-03-15 15:57 ` [PATCH] " Michał Winiarski
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2018-03-14 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Wajdeczko; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/39982/
State : warning
== Summary ==
Series 39982v1 drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/39982/revisions/1/mbox/
---- Possible new issues:
Test kms_flip:
Subgroup basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank:
fail -> PASS (fi-skl-6770hq)
Test kms_force_connector_basic:
Subgroup force-connector-state:
pass -> SKIP (fi-ivb-3520m)
Subgroup force-edid:
pass -> SKIP (fi-ivb-3520m)
Subgroup force-load-detect:
pass -> SKIP (fi-ivb-3520m)
Subgroup prune-stale-modes:
pass -> SKIP (fi-ivb-3520m)
---- Known issues:
Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
Subgroup suspend-read-crc-pipe-b:
pass -> INCOMPLETE (fi-snb-2520m) fdo#103713
fdo#103713 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103713
fi-bdw-5557u total:285 pass:264 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:21 time:436s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm total:285 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 time:441s
fi-blb-e6850 total:285 pass:220 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:64 time:378s
fi-bsw-n3050 total:285 pass:239 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:46 time:535s
fi-bwr-2160 total:285 pass:180 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:105 time:297s
fi-bxt-dsi total:285 pass:255 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:30 time:511s
fi-byt-j1900 total:285 pass:250 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:35 time:517s
fi-byt-n2820 total:285 pass:246 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:39 time:503s
fi-cfl-8700k total:285 pass:257 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:28 time:409s
fi-cfl-s2 total:285 pass:259 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:26 time:580s
fi-cfl-u total:285 pass:259 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:26 time:509s
fi-cnl-y3 total:285 pass:259 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:26 time:588s
fi-elk-e7500 total:285 pass:226 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:59 time:425s
fi-gdg-551 total:285 pass:176 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:108 time:315s
fi-glk-1 total:285 pass:257 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:28 time:532s
fi-hsw-4770 total:285 pass:258 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:27 time:402s
fi-ilk-650 total:285 pass:225 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:60 time:421s
fi-ivb-3520m total:285 pass:252 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:33 time:471s
fi-ivb-3770 total:285 pass:252 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:33 time:430s
fi-kbl-7500u total:285 pass:260 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 time:478s
fi-kbl-7567u total:285 pass:265 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:20 time:462s
fi-kbl-r total:285 pass:258 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:27 time:514s
fi-pnv-d510 total:285 pass:219 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:65 time:662s
fi-skl-6260u total:285 pass:265 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:20 time:436s
fi-skl-6600u total:285 pass:258 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:27 time:531s
fi-skl-6700hq total:285 pass:259 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:26 time:540s
fi-skl-6700k2 total:285 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 time:506s
fi-skl-6770hq total:285 pass:265 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:20 time:491s
fi-skl-guc total:285 pass:257 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:28 time:425s
fi-skl-gvtdvm total:285 pass:262 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:23 time:446s
fi-snb-2520m total:242 pass:208 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:33
fi-snb-2600 total:285 pass:245 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:40 time:399s
Blacklisted hosts:
fi-cnl-drrs total:285 pass:254 dwarn:3 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:28 time:546s
86e964296fe8bc85fdb624fa75b4cd83fcfb58cd drm-tip: 2018y-03m-14d-17h-40m-20s UTC integration manifest
4a9184965adc drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_8350/issues.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions
2018-03-14 18:37 [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions Michal Wajdeczko
2018-03-14 19:11 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
@ 2018-03-15 15:57 ` Michał Winiarski
2018-03-15 16:19 ` Michal Wajdeczko
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michał Winiarski @ 2018-03-15 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Wajdeczko; +Cc: intel-gfx
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:37:15PM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> We should avoid using guc_log prefix for functions that don't
> operate on GuC log, but rather request action from the GuC.
> Better to use guc_action prefix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
> Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> index b9c7bd7..457168a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
> * registers value.
> */
>
> -static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
> +static int guc_action_flush_log_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
> {
> u32 action[] = {
> INTEL_GUC_ACTION_LOG_BUFFER_FILE_FLUSH_COMPLETE
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
> return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
> }
>
> -static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
> +static int guc_action_flush_log(struct intel_guc *guc)
> {
> u32 action[] = {
> INTEL_GUC_ACTION_FORCE_LOG_BUFFER_FLUSH,
> @@ -58,7 +58,8 @@ static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
> return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
> }
>
> -static int guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable, u32 verbosity)
> +static int guc_action_enable_log(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable,
> + u32 verbosity)
Let's hide the fact that the actual action is called "ENABLE_LOGGING", and stick
with guc_action_log_control, especially since we're using guc_log_control union,
and the action itself is also used for verbosity (and default log... more than
just enable/disable switch).
With that:
Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
-Michał
> {
> union guc_log_control control_val = {
> {
> @@ -525,7 +526,7 @@ static void guc_log_capture_logs(struct intel_guc *guc)
> * time, so get/put should be really quick.
> */
> intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
> - guc_log_flush_complete(guc);
> + guc_action_flush_log_complete(guc);
> intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
> }
>
> @@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static void guc_flush_logs(struct intel_guc *guc)
>
> /* Ask GuC to update the log buffer state */
> intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
> - guc_log_flush(guc);
> + guc_action_flush_log(guc);
> intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
>
> /* GuC would have updated log buffer by now, so capture it */
> @@ -639,10 +640,11 @@ int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 val)
> }
>
> intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
> - ret = guc_log_control(guc, enabled, LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
> + ret = guc_action_enable_log(guc, enabled, LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
> intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
> if (ret) {
> - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_log_control action failed %d\n", ret);
> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC action to %s log failed (%d)\n",
> + enabled ? "enable" : "disable", ret);
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions
2018-03-15 15:57 ` [PATCH] " Michał Winiarski
@ 2018-03-15 16:19 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2018-03-15 16:54 ` Michał Winiarski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michal Wajdeczko @ 2018-03-15 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michał Winiarski; +Cc: intel-gfx
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:26 +0100, Michał Winiarski
<michal.winiarski@intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:37:15PM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>> We should avoid using guc_log prefix for functions that don't
>> operate on GuC log, but rather request action from the GuC.
>> Better to use guc_action prefix.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
>> Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
>> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 16 +++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
>> index b9c7bd7..457168a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
>> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
>> * registers value.
>> */
>>
>> -static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
>> +static int guc_action_flush_log_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
>> {
>> u32 action[] = {
>> INTEL_GUC_ACTION_LOG_BUFFER_FILE_FLUSH_COMPLETE
>> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc
>> *guc)
>> return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
>> }
>>
>> -static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
>> +static int guc_action_flush_log(struct intel_guc *guc)
>> {
>> u32 action[] = {
>> INTEL_GUC_ACTION_FORCE_LOG_BUFFER_FLUSH,
>> @@ -58,7 +58,8 @@ static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
>> return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
>> }
>>
>> -static int guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable, u32
>> verbosity)
>> +static int guc_action_enable_log(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable,
>> + u32 verbosity)
>
> Let's hide the fact that the actual action is called "ENABLE_LOGGING",
> and stick
> with guc_action_log_control, especially since we're using
> guc_log_control union,
> and the action itself is also used for verbosity (and default log...
> more than
> just enable/disable switch).
Hmm, I think that using action name as base for function is right thing.
If in your opinion action name is not correct, we should start with action
rename first.
And I would rather prefer to drop definition of union guc_log_control
and replace it with set of SHIFT/MASK macros as we do for other bitfields.
Also using actual action name as base for new function name, we could
avoid having yet another [log|control|log] function name permutation.
But I'm flexible ;)
>
> With that:
>
> Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
>
> -Michał
>
>> {
>> union guc_log_control control_val = {
>> {
>> @@ -525,7 +526,7 @@ static void guc_log_capture_logs(struct intel_guc
>> *guc)
>> * time, so get/put should be really quick.
>> */
>> intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
>> - guc_log_flush_complete(guc);
>> + guc_action_flush_log_complete(guc);
>> intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ static void guc_flush_logs(struct intel_guc *guc)
>>
>> /* Ask GuC to update the log buffer state */
>> intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
>> - guc_log_flush(guc);
>> + guc_action_flush_log(guc);
>> intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
>>
>> /* GuC would have updated log buffer by now, so capture it */
>> @@ -639,10 +640,11 @@ int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc
>> *guc, u64 val)
>> }
>>
>> intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
>> - ret = guc_log_control(guc, enabled, LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
>> + ret = guc_action_enable_log(guc, enabled,
>> LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
>> intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
>> if (ret) {
>> - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_log_control action failed %d\n", ret);
>> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC action to %s log failed (%d)\n",
>> + enabled ? "enable" : "disable", ret);
>> goto out_unlock;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 1.9.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions
2018-03-15 16:19 ` Michal Wajdeczko
@ 2018-03-15 16:54 ` Michał Winiarski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michał Winiarski @ 2018-03-15 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Wajdeczko; +Cc: intel-gfx
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:19:27PM +0100, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:26 +0100, Michał Winiarski
> <michal.winiarski@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:37:15PM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> > > We should avoid using guc_log prefix for functions that don't
> > > operate on GuC log, but rather request action from the GuC.
> > > Better to use guc_action prefix.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> > > index b9c7bd7..457168a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> > > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
> > > * registers value.
> > > */
> > >
> > > -static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > > +static int guc_action_flush_log_complete(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > > {
> > > u32 action[] = {
> > > INTEL_GUC_ACTION_LOG_BUFFER_FILE_FLUSH_COMPLETE
> > > @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static int guc_log_flush_complete(struct intel_guc
> > > *guc)
> > > return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > > +static int guc_action_flush_log(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > > {
> > > u32 action[] = {
> > > INTEL_GUC_ACTION_FORCE_LOG_BUFFER_FLUSH,
> > > @@ -58,7 +58,8 @@ static int guc_log_flush(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > > return intel_guc_send(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action));
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable, u32
> > > verbosity)
> > > +static int guc_action_enable_log(struct intel_guc *guc, bool enable,
> > > + u32 verbosity)
> >
> > Let's hide the fact that the actual action is called "ENABLE_LOGGING",
> > and stick
> > with guc_action_log_control, especially since we're using
> > guc_log_control union,
> > and the action itself is also used for verbosity (and default log...
> > more than
> > just enable/disable switch).
>
> Hmm, I think that using action name as base for function is right thing.
> If in your opinion action name is not correct, we should start with action
> rename first.
Nooo, then we're going to have i915/GuC mismatch :/
> And I would rather prefer to drop definition of union guc_log_control
> and replace it with set of SHIFT/MASK macros as we do for other bitfields.
Sure - why not.
> Also using actual action name as base for new function name, we could
> avoid having yet another [log|control|log] function name permutation.
We're not consistent with maching action/function name, and I think 4 arguments
"enable" function is going to be really confusing. But I don't have a strong
opinion here, it's going to be used in a single place, and it has "guc_action_*"
warning sign now ;)
-Michał
> But I'm flexible ;)
>
> >
> > With that:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
> >
> > -Michał
> >
> > >
> > > /* GuC would have updated log buffer by now, so capture it */
> > > @@ -639,10 +640,11 @@ int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc
> > > *guc, u64 val)
> > > }
> > >
> > > intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
> > > - ret = guc_log_control(guc, enabled, LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
> > > + ret = guc_action_enable_log(guc, enabled,
> > > LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
> > > intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
> > > if (ret) {
> > > - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_log_control action failed %d\n", ret);
> > > + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC action to %s log failed (%d)\n",
> > > + enabled ? "enable" : "disable", ret);
> > > goto out_unlock;
> > > }
> > >
> > > --
> > > 1.9.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-03-15 16:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-03-14 18:37 [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Unify naming of private GuC action functions Michal Wajdeczko
2018-03-14 19:11 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
2018-03-15 15:57 ` [PATCH] " Michał Winiarski
2018-03-15 16:19 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2018-03-15 16:54 ` Michał Winiarski
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.