Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Allow to dump debug registers on S0ix failure

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:36 PM Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:02 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:36 PM Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com> wrote:

> > Perhaps something like
> >
> > pmcdev->check_counters = false;
> > /* User doesn't want to be warned */
> > if (!warn_on...)
> >  return 0;
> > /* We do suspend via firmware */
> > if (...)
> >  return 0;
> > ...
> >
> > ?
>
> I guess what you mean is one conditional per line. Sure, I will do that.

Yes

> > > +static inline bool pc10_failed(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev)
> >
> > To be or not to be? :-)
> > Perhaps names of the functions should be
> >
> > pmc_code_is_pc10_failed()
> >
> > and so on
>
> I think the suggestion is to use pmc_core_* as the function names. OK,
> I will rename the functions to:
>
> pmc_core_pc10_failed()
> and
> pmc_core_s0ix_failed()

And verb "to be". See above.

> > Can't we utilize existing print helpers?
>
> I didn't quite see any existing print helpers in this file. I took
> this code from pmc_core_slps0_dbg_show(), and I think although I can
> abstract out this code into a static function, the calling code need
> to use seq_printf(s,...) and dev_warn(dev,...) respectively. - so
> might be overkill (did not feel that the benefits were worth it).
> Please let me know if you have any suggestions and will be happy to
> use them.

Instead of adding module parameter and doing these prints, perhaps
introduce another debugfs node.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko