* ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
2018-08-11 0:50 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit Dhinakaran Pandiyan
@ 2018-08-11 1:13 ` Patchwork
2018-08-11 2:03 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2018-08-11 1:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dhinakaran Pandiyan; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/48048/
State : success
== Summary ==
= CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_4645 -> Patchwork_9923 =
== Summary - SUCCESS ==
No regressions found.
External URL: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/48048/revisions/1/mbox/
== Known issues ==
Here are the changes found in Patchwork_9923 that come from known issues:
=== IGT changes ===
==== Issues hit ====
{igt@amdgpu/amd_basic@userptr}:
{fi-kbl-8809g}: PASS -> INCOMPLETE (fdo#107402)
igt@drv_selftest@live_workarounds:
{fi-cfl-8109u}: PASS -> DMESG-FAIL (fdo#107292)
fi-kbl-x1275: PASS -> DMESG-FAIL (fdo#107292)
igt@kms_frontbuffer_tracking@basic:
{fi-byt-clapper}: PASS -> FAIL (fdo#103167)
==== Possible fixes ====
igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries:
fi-snb-2520m: INCOMPLETE (fdo#103713) -> PASS
igt@drv_selftest@live_hangcheck:
fi-kbl-7500u: DMESG-FAIL (fdo#106560, fdo#106947) -> PASS
fi-kbl-guc: DMESG-FAIL (fdo#106947) -> PASS
igt@drv_selftest@live_requests:
{fi-bsw-kefka}: INCOMPLETE (fdo#105876) -> PASS
igt@drv_selftest@live_workarounds:
{fi-bsw-kefka}: DMESG-FAIL (fdo#107292) -> PASS
igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-dpms:
fi-bxt-dsi: INCOMPLETE (fdo#103927) -> PASS
igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@hang-read-crc-pipe-a:
fi-skl-guc: FAIL (fdo#103191) -> PASS
igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@hang-read-crc-pipe-b:
{fi-byt-clapper}: FAIL (fdo#103191, fdo#107362) -> PASS
{name}: This element is suppressed. This means it is ignored when computing
the status of the difference (SUCCESS, WARNING, or FAILURE).
fdo#103167 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103167
fdo#103191 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103191
fdo#103713 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103713
fdo#103927 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103927
fdo#105876 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105876
fdo#106560 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106560
fdo#106947 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106947
fdo#107292 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107292
fdo#107362 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107362
fdo#107402 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107402
== Participating hosts (53 -> 48) ==
Missing (5): fi-ctg-p8600 fi-ilk-m540 fi-byt-squawks fi-bsw-cyan fi-hsw-4200u
== Build changes ==
* Linux: CI_DRM_4645 -> Patchwork_9923
CI_DRM_4645: 37a3cb069a7116ab9b04d3020c54557633dd180b @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
IGT_4592: fce9638b2e60afce872b3056c19a729b1b3708be @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools
Patchwork_9923: 6a0549d5bcab0290e4ff6c2c22b63f9bbcedc147 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
== Linux commits ==
6a0549d5bcab drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_9923/issues.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
2018-08-11 0:50 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit Dhinakaran Pandiyan
2018-08-11 1:13 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
@ 2018-08-11 2:03 ` Patchwork
2018-08-12 8:00 ` [PATCH] " kbuild test robot
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2018-08-11 2:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dhinakaran Pandiyan; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/48048/
State : success
== Summary ==
= CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_4645_full -> Patchwork_9923_full =
== Summary - WARNING ==
Minor unknown changes coming with Patchwork_9923_full need to be verified
manually.
If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_9923_full, please notify your bug team to allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.
== Possible new issues ==
Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_9923_full:
=== IGT changes ===
==== Warnings ====
igt@kms_chv_cursor_fail@pipe-a-128x128-top-edge:
shard-snb: PASS -> SKIP
== Known issues ==
Here are the changes found in Patchwork_9923_full that come from known issues:
=== IGT changes ===
==== Issues hit ====
igt@drv_suspend@fence-restore-untiled:
shard-glk: PASS -> FAIL (fdo#103375)
igt@kms_cursor_legacy@all-pipes-torture-move:
shard-snb: PASS -> DMESG-WARN (fdo#107122)
fdo#103375 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103375
fdo#107122 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107122
== Participating hosts (5 -> 5) ==
No changes in participating hosts
== Build changes ==
* Linux: CI_DRM_4645 -> Patchwork_9923
CI_DRM_4645: 37a3cb069a7116ab9b04d3020c54557633dd180b @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
IGT_4592: fce9638b2e60afce872b3056c19a729b1b3708be @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools
Patchwork_9923: 6a0549d5bcab0290e4ff6c2c22b63f9bbcedc147 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
piglit_4509: fdc5a4ca11124ab8413c7988896eec4c97336694 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/piglit
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_9923/shards.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
2018-08-11 0:50 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit Dhinakaran Pandiyan
2018-08-11 1:13 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2018-08-11 2:03 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
@ 2018-08-12 8:00 ` kbuild test robot
2018-08-12 9:26 ` kbuild test robot
2018-08-13 13:47 ` Maarten Lankhorst
4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kbuild test robot @ 2018-08-12 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: intel-gfx, kbuild-all, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3371 bytes --]
Hi Dhinakaran,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on drm-intel/for-linux-next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.18-rc8 next-20180810]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Dhinakaran-Pandiyan/drm-i915-psr-Add-missing-check-for-I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ-bit/20180812-143531
base: git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel for-linux-next
config: x86_64-randconfig-x018-201832 (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.3.0-16) 7.3.0
reproduce:
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make ARCH=x86_64
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
drivers/gpu//drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c: In function 'i915_edp_psr_status':
>> drivers/gpu//drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c:2738:39: error: 'I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'EDP_PSR_DEBUG'?
if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDP_PSR_DEBUG
drivers/gpu//drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c:2738:39: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
vim +2738 drivers/gpu//drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
2692
2693 static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
2694 {
2695 struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
2696 u32 psrperf = 0;
2697 bool enabled = false;
2698 bool sink_support;
2699
2700 if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv))
2701 return -ENODEV;
2702
2703 sink_support = dev_priv->psr.sink_support;
2704 seq_printf(m, "Sink_Support: %s\n", yesno(sink_support));
2705 if (!sink_support)
2706 return 0;
2707
2708 intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
2709
2710 mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
2711 seq_printf(m, "Enabled: %s\n", yesno((bool)dev_priv->psr.enabled));
2712 seq_printf(m, "Busy frontbuffer bits: 0x%03x\n",
2713 dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits);
2714
2715 if (dev_priv->psr.psr2_enabled)
2716 enabled = I915_READ(EDP_PSR2_CTL) & EDP_PSR2_ENABLE;
2717 else
2718 enabled = I915_READ(EDP_PSR_CTL) & EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
2719
2720 seq_printf(m, "Main link in standby mode: %s\n",
2721 yesno(dev_priv->psr.link_standby));
2722
2723 seq_printf(m, "HW Enabled & Active bit: %s\n", yesno(enabled));
2724
2725 /*
2726 * SKL+ Perf counter is reset to 0 everytime DC state is entered
2727 */
2728 if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv)) {
2729 psrperf = I915_READ(EDP_PSR_PERF_CNT) &
2730 EDP_PSR_PERF_CNT_MASK;
2731
2732 seq_printf(m, "Performance_Counter: %u\n", psrperf);
2733 }
2734
2735 psr_source_status(dev_priv, m);
2736 mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
2737
> 2738 if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
2739 seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
2740 dev_priv->psr.last_entry_attempt);
2741 seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n",
2742 dev_priv->psr.last_exit);
2743 }
2744
2745 intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
2746 return 0;
2747 }
2748
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
[-- Attachment #2: .config.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 26584 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
2018-08-11 0:50 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit Dhinakaran Pandiyan
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2018-08-12 8:00 ` [PATCH] " kbuild test robot
@ 2018-08-12 9:26 ` kbuild test robot
2018-08-13 13:47 ` Maarten Lankhorst
4 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kbuild test robot @ 2018-08-12 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: intel-gfx, kbuild-all, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4412 bytes --]
Hi Dhinakaran,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on drm-intel/for-linux-next]
[also build test WARNING on v4.18-rc8 next-20180810]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Dhinakaran-Pandiyan/drm-i915-psr-Add-missing-check-for-I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ-bit/20180812-143531
base: git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel for-linux-next
config: x86_64-randconfig-s1-08121632 (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.4.0-9) 6.4.0 20171026
reproduce:
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make ARCH=x86_64
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from include/linux/kernel.h:10:0,
from include/linux/list.h:9,
from include/linux/wait.h:7,
from include/linux/wait_bit.h:8,
from include/linux/fs.h:6,
from include/linux/debugfs.h:15,
from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c:29:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c: In function 'i915_edp_psr_status':
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c:2738:39: error: 'I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ' undeclared (first use in this function)
if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
^
include/linux/compiler.h:58:30: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if'
if (__builtin_constant_p(!!(cond)) ? !!(cond) : \
^~~~
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c:2738:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
^~
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c:2738:39: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
^
include/linux/compiler.h:58:30: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if'
if (__builtin_constant_p(!!(cond)) ? !!(cond) : \
^~~~
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c:2738:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
^~
vim +/if +2738 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
2692
2693 static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
2694 {
2695 struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private);
2696 u32 psrperf = 0;
2697 bool enabled = false;
2698 bool sink_support;
2699
2700 if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv))
2701 return -ENODEV;
2702
2703 sink_support = dev_priv->psr.sink_support;
2704 seq_printf(m, "Sink_Support: %s\n", yesno(sink_support));
2705 if (!sink_support)
2706 return 0;
2707
2708 intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
2709
2710 mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
2711 seq_printf(m, "Enabled: %s\n", yesno((bool)dev_priv->psr.enabled));
2712 seq_printf(m, "Busy frontbuffer bits: 0x%03x\n",
2713 dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits);
2714
2715 if (dev_priv->psr.psr2_enabled)
2716 enabled = I915_READ(EDP_PSR2_CTL) & EDP_PSR2_ENABLE;
2717 else
2718 enabled = I915_READ(EDP_PSR_CTL) & EDP_PSR_ENABLE;
2719
2720 seq_printf(m, "Main link in standby mode: %s\n",
2721 yesno(dev_priv->psr.link_standby));
2722
2723 seq_printf(m, "HW Enabled & Active bit: %s\n", yesno(enabled));
2724
2725 /*
2726 * SKL+ Perf counter is reset to 0 everytime DC state is entered
2727 */
2728 if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv)) {
2729 psrperf = I915_READ(EDP_PSR_PERF_CNT) &
2730 EDP_PSR_PERF_CNT_MASK;
2731
2732 seq_printf(m, "Performance_Counter: %u\n", psrperf);
2733 }
2734
2735 psr_source_status(dev_priv, m);
2736 mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
2737
> 2738 if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
2739 seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
2740 dev_priv->psr.last_entry_attempt);
2741 seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n",
2742 dev_priv->psr.last_exit);
2743 }
2744
2745 intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
2746 return 0;
2747 }
2748
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
[-- Attachment #2: .config.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 26769 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
2018-08-11 0:50 [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit Dhinakaran Pandiyan
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2018-08-12 9:26 ` kbuild test robot
@ 2018-08-13 13:47 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2018-08-13 16:47 ` Rodrigo Vivi
4 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Maarten Lankhorst @ 2018-08-13 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dhinakaran Pandiyan, intel-gfx
Op 11-08-18 om 02:50 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> We print the last attempted entry and last exit timestamps only when
> IRQ debug is requested. This check was missed when new debug flags were
> added in 'commit c44301fce614 ("drm/i915: Allow control of PSR at
> runtime through debugfs, v6")
>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 26b7e5276b15..374b550d9a4f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -2735,7 +2735,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> psr_source_status(dev_priv, m);
> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
>
> - if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug)) {
> + if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
> seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
> dev_priv->psr.last_entry_attempt);
> seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n",
Oops indeed.
Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
2018-08-13 13:47 ` Maarten Lankhorst
@ 2018-08-13 16:47 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2018-08-13 18:15 ` Pandiyan, Dhinakaran
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Rodrigo Vivi @ 2018-08-13 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maarten Lankhorst; +Cc: intel-gfx, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 03:47:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 11-08-18 om 02:50 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> > We print the last attempted entry and last exit timestamps only when
> > IRQ debug is requested. This check was missed when new debug flags were
> > added in 'commit c44301fce614 ("drm/i915: Allow control of PSR at
> > runtime through debugfs, v6")
> >
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > index 26b7e5276b15..374b550d9a4f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > @@ -2735,7 +2735,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> > psr_source_status(dev_priv, m);
> > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> >
> > - if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug)) {
> > + if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ) {
> > seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
> > dev_priv->psr.last_entry_attempt);
> > seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n",
>
> Oops indeed.
>
> Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
before pushing to dinq please check the compilation there..
kbuild bot raised an issue...
so apparently we will need a backmerge before pushing this...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
2018-08-13 16:47 ` Rodrigo Vivi
@ 2018-08-13 18:15 ` Pandiyan, Dhinakaran
2018-08-14 9:26 ` Maarten Lankhorst
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Pandiyan, Dhinakaran @ 2018-08-13 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vivi, Rodrigo, maarten.lankhorst; +Cc: intel-gfx
On Mon, 2018-08-13 at 09:47 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 03:47:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > Op 11-08-18 om 02:50 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> > > We print the last attempted entry and last exit timestamps only
> > > when
> > > IRQ debug is requested. This check was missed when new debug
> > > flags were
> > > added in 'commit c44301fce614 ("drm/i915: Allow control of PSR at
> > > runtime through debugfs, v6")
> > >
> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com
> > > >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > index 26b7e5276b15..374b550d9a4f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > @@ -2735,7 +2735,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct
> > > seq_file *m, void *data)
> > > psr_source_status(dev_priv, m);
> > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> > >
> > > - if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug)) {
> > > + if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ)
> > > {
> > > seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
> > > dev_priv->psr.last_entry_attempt);
> > > seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n",
> >
> > Oops indeed.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
>
> before pushing to dinq please check the compilation there..
> kbuild bot raised an issue...
>
> so apparently we will need a backmerge before pushing this...
The failures are on
[auto build test ERROR on drm-intel/for-linux-next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.18-rc8 next-20180810]
Is a back-merge expected to fix that? and who does that back-merge?
-DK
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
2018-08-13 18:15 ` Pandiyan, Dhinakaran
@ 2018-08-14 9:26 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2018-08-15 21:06 ` Rodrigo Vivi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Maarten Lankhorst @ 2018-08-14 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pandiyan, Dhinakaran, Vivi, Rodrigo; +Cc: intel-gfx
Op 13-08-18 om 20:15 schreef Pandiyan, Dhinakaran:
> On Mon, 2018-08-13 at 09:47 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 03:47:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Op 11-08-18 om 02:50 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
>>>> We print the last attempted entry and last exit timestamps only
>>>> when
>>>> IRQ debug is requested. This check was missed when new debug
>>>> flags were
>>>> added in 'commit c44301fce614 ("drm/i915: Allow control of PSR at
>>>> runtime through debugfs, v6")
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>>> index 26b7e5276b15..374b550d9a4f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>>>> @@ -2735,7 +2735,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct
>>>> seq_file *m, void *data)
>>>> psr_source_status(dev_priv, m);
>>>> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
>>>>
>>>> - if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug)) {
>>>> + if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ)
>>>> {
>>>> seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
>>>> dev_priv->psr.last_entry_attempt);
>>>> seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n",
>>> Oops indeed.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
>> before pushing to dinq please check the compilation there..
>> kbuild bot raised an issue...
>>
>> so apparently we will need a backmerge before pushing this...
> The failures are on
>
> [auto build test ERROR on drm-intel/for-linux-next]
> [also build test ERROR on v4.18-rc8 next-20180810]
>
> Is a back-merge expected to fix that? and who does that back-merge?
Yes, this fix should have been pushed to drm-misc-next. So both branches need to be merged. :)
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Add missing check for I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ bit
2018-08-14 9:26 ` Maarten Lankhorst
@ 2018-08-15 21:06 ` Rodrigo Vivi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Rodrigo Vivi @ 2018-08-15 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maarten Lankhorst; +Cc: intel-gfx, Pandiyan, Dhinakaran
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:26:19AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 13-08-18 om 20:15 schreef Pandiyan, Dhinakaran:
> > On Mon, 2018-08-13 at 09:47 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 03:47:20PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >>> Op 11-08-18 om 02:50 schreef Dhinakaran Pandiyan:
> >>>> We print the last attempted entry and last exit timestamps only
> >>>> when
> >>>> IRQ debug is requested. This check was missed when new debug
> >>>> flags were
> >>>> added in 'commit c44301fce614 ("drm/i915: Allow control of PSR at
> >>>> runtime through debugfs, v6")
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 +-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> >>>> index 26b7e5276b15..374b550d9a4f 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> >>>> @@ -2735,7 +2735,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct
> >>>> seq_file *m, void *data)
> >>>> psr_source_status(dev_priv, m);
> >>>> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
> >>>>
> >>>> - if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug)) {
> >>>> + if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->psr.debug) & I915_PSR_DEBUG_IRQ)
> >>>> {
> >>>> seq_printf(m, "Last attempted entry at: %lld\n",
> >>>> dev_priv->psr.last_entry_attempt);
> >>>> seq_printf(m, "Last exit at: %lld\n",
> >>> Oops indeed.
> >>>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> >> before pushing to dinq please check the compilation there..
> >> kbuild bot raised an issue...
> >>
> >> so apparently we will need a backmerge before pushing this...
> > The failures are on
> >
> > [auto build test ERROR on drm-intel/for-linux-next]
> > [also build test ERROR on v4.18-rc8 next-20180810]
I don't expect this patch on any of this, so let's just ignore it ;)
now I'm asking myself why exactly kbuild bot is trying to apply
patches targeting 4.20 on branches targeting 4.18 and 4.19...
?! :/
> > Is a back-merge expected to fix that?
my concern was more about having this gap on dinq.
I checked and we are good to push this through dinq
no backmerge needed
so feel free to go ahead.
> and who does that back-merge?
maintainers per need bases
> Yes, this fix should have been pushed to drm-misc-next. So both branches need to be merged. :)
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread