On 12/08/16 07:25, [email protected] wrote:
From: Sagar Arun Kamble <[email protected]>
This patch provides debugfs interface i915_guc_output_control for
on the fly enabling/disabling of logging in GuC firmware and controlling
the verbosity level of logs.
The value written to the file, should have bit 0 set to enable logging and
bits 4-7 should contain the verbosity info.
v2: Add a forceful flush, to collect left over logs, on disabling logging.
Useful for Validation.
v3: Besides minor cleanup, implement read method for the debugfs file and
set the guc_log_level to -1 when logging is disabled. (Tvrtko)
Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Akash Goel <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index 14e0dcf..f472fbcd3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -2674,6 +2674,47 @@ static int i915_guc_log_dump(struct seq_file *m, void
*data)
return 0;
}
+static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data, u64 *val)
+{
+ struct drm_device *dev = data;
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
+
+ if (!dev_priv->guc.log.obj)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ *val = i915.guc_log_level;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val)
+{
+ struct drm_device *dev = data;
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev->struct_mutex);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (!dev_priv->guc.log.obj) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto end;
+ }
+
+ intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
+ ret = i915_guc_log_control(dev_priv, val);
+ intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
+
+end:
+ mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_guc_log_control_fops,
+ i915_guc_log_control_get, i915_guc_log_control_set,
+ "%lld\n");
+
static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
{
struct drm_info_node *node = m->private;
@@ -5477,7 +5518,8 @@ static const struct i915_debugfs_files {
{"i915_fbc_false_color", &i915_fbc_fc_fops},
{"i915_dp_test_data", &i915_displayport_test_data_fops},
{"i915_dp_test_type", &i915_displayport_test_type_fops},
- {"i915_dp_test_active", &i915_displayport_test_active_fops}
+ {"i915_dp_test_active", &i915_displayport_test_active_fops},
+ {"i915_guc_log_control", &i915_guc_log_control_fops}
};
void intel_display_crc_init(struct drm_device *dev)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
index 4a75c16..041cf68 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
@@ -195,6 +195,16 @@ static int host2guc_force_logbuffer_flush(struct intel_guc
*guc)
return host2guc_action(guc, data, 2);
}
+static int host2guc_logging_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 control_val)
+{
+ u32 data[2];
+
+ data[0] = HOST2GUC_ACTION_UK_LOG_ENABLE_LOGGING;
+ data[1] = control_val;
+
+ return host2guc_action(guc, data, 2);
+}
+
/*
* Initialise, update, or clear doorbell data shared with the GuC
*
@@ -1538,3 +1548,56 @@ void i915_guc_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
guc_log_late_setup(&dev_priv->guc);
mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
}
+
+int i915_guc_log_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u64 control_val)
+{
+ union guc_log_control log_param;
+ int ret;
+
+ log_param.logging_enabled = control_val & 0x1;
+ log_param.verbosity = (control_val >> 4) & 0xF;
Maybe "log_param.value = control_val" would also work since
guc_log_control is conveniently defined as an union. Doesn't matter though.
+
+ if (log_param.verbosity < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN ||
+ log_param.verbosity > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* This combination doesn't make sense & won't have any effect */
+ if (!log_param.logging_enabled && (i915.guc_log_level < 0))
+ return 0;
I wonder if it would work and maybe look nicer to generalize as:
int guc_log_level;
guc_log_level = log_param.logging_enabled ? log_param.verbosity : -1;
if (i915.guc_log_level == guc_log_level)
return 0;
+
+ ret = host2guc_logging_control(&dev_priv->guc, log_param.value);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("host2guc action failed %d\n", ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ i915.guc_log_level = log_param.verbosity;
This would then become i915.guc_log_level = guc_log_level.
+
+ /* If log_level was set as -1 at boot time, then the relay channel file
+ * wouldn't have been created by now and interrupts also would not have
+ * been enabled.
+ */
+ if (!dev_priv->guc.log.relay_chan) {
+ ret = guc_log_late_setup(&dev_priv->guc);
+ if (!ret)
+ gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv);
+ } else if (!log_param.logging_enabled) {
+ /* Once logging is disabled, GuC won't generate logs & send an
+ * interrupt. But there could be some data in the log buffer
+ * which is yet to be captured. So request GuC to update the log
+ * buffer state and then collect the left over logs.
+ */
+ i915_guc_flush_logs(dev_priv);
+
+ /* GuC would have updated the log buffer by now, so capture it
*/
+ i915_guc_capture_logs(dev_priv);
+
+ /* As logging is disabled, update the log level to reflect that
*/
+ i915.guc_log_level = -1;
+ } else {
+ /* In case interrupts were disabled, enable them now */
+ gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv);
+ }
And this block would need some adjustments with my guc_log_level idea.
Well not sure, see what you think. I am just attracted to the idea of
operating in the same value domain as much as possible for readability
and simplicity. Maybe it would not improve anything, I did not bother
with typing it all to check.
+
+ return ret;
+}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
index d3a5447..2f8c408 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
@@ -186,5 +186,6 @@ void i915_guc_capture_logs(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv);
void i915_guc_flush_logs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
void i915_guc_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
void i915_guc_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
+int i915_guc_log_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u64 control_val);
#endif
Patch looks correct as is, so:
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
Although I would be happier though if my suggestion to use the same
value domain as for the module parameter was used. In other words:
{"i915_guc_log_level", &i915_guc_log_control_fops}
...
int i915_guc_log_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u64 control_val)
...
int guc_log_level = (int)control_val;
...
log_param.logging_enabled = guc_log_level > -1;
log_param.verbosity = guc_log_level > -1 ? guc_log_level : 0;
...
It think it would be simpler for the user and developer to only have to
think about one set of values when dealing with guc logging.
But maybe extensions to guc_log_control are imminent and expected so it
would not be worth it in the long run. No idea.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
