From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751451AbeDXTxZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:53:25 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:27472 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750778AbeDXTxW (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:53:22 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,324,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="36127019" Message-ID: <1524601089.24461.28.camel@dk-H97M-D3H> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v8 01/10] drm/atomic: Print debug message on atomic check failure From: Dhinakaran Pandiyan Reply-To: dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com To: Lyude Paul Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:18:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180411234302.2896-2-lyude@redhat.com> References: <20180411234302.2896-1-lyude@redhat.com> <20180411234302.2896-2-lyude@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 19:42 -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > Does what it says on the label, it's a little confusing debugging atomic > check failures otherwise. > > Cc: Manasi Navare > Cc: Ville Syrjälä > Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c > index 7d25c42f22db..972a7e9634ab 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c > @@ -1705,8 +1705,11 @@ int drm_atomic_check_only(struct drm_atomic_state *state) > if (config->funcs->atomic_check) > ret = config->funcs->atomic_check(state->dev, state); > > - if (ret) > + if (ret) { > + DRM_DEBUG_ATOMIC("atomic driver check for %p failed: %d\n", > + state, ret); > return ret; > + } > nit: Would have slightly looked better if the 'ret' check was moved inside the branch for funcs->atomic_check. Reviewed-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan > if (!state->allow_modeset) { > for_each_new_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {