On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:00:06PM +0100, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:47:00 +0100, Michał Winiarski > <michal.winiar...@intel.com> wrote: > > > Those two concepts are really separate. Since GuC is writing data into > > its own buffer and we even provide a way for userspace to read directly > > from it using i915_guc_log_dump debugfs, there's no real reason to tie > > log level with relay creation. > > Let's create a separate debugfs, giving userspace a way to create a > > relay on demand, when it wants to read a continuous log rather than a > > snapshot. > > > > v2: Don't touch guc_log_level on relay creation error, adjust locking > > after rebase, s/dev_priv/i915, pass guc to file->private_data (Sagar) > > Use struct_mutex rather than runtime.lock for set_log_level > > > > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiar...@intel.com> > > Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospu...@intel.com> > > Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kam...@intel.com> > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com> > > --- > > /snip/ > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > > index 90d2f38e22c9..abce0e38528a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c > > @@ -219,28 +219,6 @@ static void guc_free_load_err_log(struct intel_guc > > *guc) > > i915_gem_object_put(guc->load_err_log); > > } > > -int intel_uc_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > > -{ > > - int ret = 0; > > - > > - if (!USES_GUC(i915)) > > - return 0; > > - > > - if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level) > > - ret = intel_guc_log_register(&i915->guc); > > - > > - return ret; > > -} > > - > > -void intel_uc_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > > -{ > > - if (!USES_GUC(i915)) > > - return; > > - > > - if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level) > > - intel_guc_log_unregister(&i915->guc); > > -} > > - > > static int guc_enable_communication(struct intel_guc *guc) > > { > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc); > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h > > index d6af984cd789..f76d51d1ce70 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h > > @@ -31,8 +31,6 @@ > > void intel_uc_sanitize_options(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > > void intel_uc_init_early(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > > void intel_uc_init_mmio(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > > -int intel_uc_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > > -void intel_uc_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > > hmm, it looks that timelines of these two functions were very short > (from patch 2 till patch 8) - so maybe by doing some patch re-order > can we fully skip them ?
I could drop patch 2 entirely and go straight to the decoupling - but that means more code movement overall and way more content in this one. I don't really see a better split (but since I'm the author I'm biased :) ). I'm open for suggestions. -Michał > > > void intel_uc_init_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > > void intel_uc_fini_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > > int intel_uc_init_misc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx