[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v12 12/17] drm/i915/guc/slpc: Add enable/disable controls for SLPC tasks
From: Tom O'Rourke
Adds debugfs hooks for enabling/disabling each SLPC task.
The enable/disable debugfs files are:
i915_guc_slpc_gtperf, i915_guc_slpc_balancer, and i915_guc_slpc_dcc.
Each of these can take the values: "default", "enabled", or "disabled"
v1: update for SLPC v2015.2.4
dfps and turbo merged and renamed "gtperf"
ibc split out and renamed "balancer"
Avoid magic numbers (Jon Bloomfield)
v2-v3: Rebase.
v5: Moved slpc_enable_disable_set and slpc_enable_disable_get to
intel_slpc.c. s/slpc_enable_disable_get/intel_slpc_task_status
and s/slpc_enable_disable_set/intel_slpc_task_control. Prepared
separate functions to update the task status only in the SLPC
shared memory. Passing dev_priv as parameter.
v6: Rebase. s/slpc_param_show|write/slpc_task_param_show|write.
Moved functions to intel_slpc.c. RPM Get/Put added before setting
parameters and sending RESET event explicitly. (Sagar)
v7: Rebase.
Signed-off-by: Tom O'Rourke
Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble
Cc: Chris Wilson
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen
Cc: Radoslaw Szwichtenberg
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko
Cc: Sujaritha Sundaresan
Cc: Jeff McGee
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 200
1 file changed, 200 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index ff90577..d646a04 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -2580,6 +2580,203 @@ static const struct file_operations
i915_guc_log_relay_fops = {
.release = i915_guc_log_relay_release,
};
+static const char *slpc_task_status_stringify(int state)
+{
+ const char *str = NULL;
+
+ switch (state) {
+ case SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DEFAULT:
+ str = "default\n";
+ break;
+
+ case SLPC_PARAM_TASK_ENABLED:
+ str = "enabled\n";
+ break;
+
+ case SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DISABLED:
+ str = "disabled\n";
+ break;
+
+ default:
+ str = "unknown\n";
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return str;
+}
+
+static int slpc_task_status_show(struct seq_file *m,
+u32 enable_id,
+u32 disable_id)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = m->private;
+ struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = &dev_priv->guc.slpc;
+ const char *status = NULL;
+ u64 val;
+ int ret;
+
+ mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
+ ret = intel_guc_slpc_task_status(slpc, &val, enable_id, disable_id);
+ mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
+
+ if (!ret)
+ status = slpc_task_status_stringify(val);
+
+ seq_printf(m, "%s", status);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int slpc_task_status_write(struct seq_file *m,
+ const char __user *ubuf,
+ size_t len,
+ u32 enable_id,
+ u32 disable_id)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = m->private;
+ struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = &dev_priv->guc.slpc;
+ int ret = 0;
+ char status[10];
+ u64 val;
+
+ if (len >= sizeof(status))
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ else if (copy_from_user(status, ubuf, len))
+ ret = -EFAULT;
+ else
+ status[len] = '\0';
+
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (!strncmp(status, "default", 7))
+ val = SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DEFAULT;
+ else if (!strncmp(status, "enabled", 7))
+ val = SLPC_PARAM_TASK_ENABLED;
+ else if (!strncmp(status, "disabled", 8))
+ val = SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DISABLED;
+ else
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
+ ret = intel_guc_slpc_task_control(slpc, val, enable_id, disable_id);
+ mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int slpc_gtperf_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
+{
+ return slpc_task_status_show(m,
+SLPC_PARAM_TASK_ENABLE_GTPERF,
+SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DISABLE_GTPERF);
+}
+
+static int i915_guc_slpc_gtperf_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = inode->i_private;
+
+ return single_open(file, slpc_gtperf_show, dev_priv);
+}
+
+static ssize_t i915_guc_slpc_gtperf_write(struct file *file,
+ const char __user *ubuf,
+ size_t len,
+ loff_t *offp)
+{
+ struct seq_file *m = file->private_data;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ ret = slpc_task_status_write(m, ubuf, len,
+SLPC_PARAM_TASK_ENABLE_GTPERF,
+SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DISABLE_GTPERF);
+
+ return ret ?: len;
+}
+
+const struct file_operations i915_gu
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v12 12/17] drm/i915/guc/slpc: Add enable/disable controls for SLPC tasks
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:31:57 +0200, Sagar Arun Kamble
wrote:
From: Tom O'Rourke
Adds debugfs hooks for enabling/disabling each SLPC task.
The enable/disable debugfs files are:
i915_guc_slpc_gtperf, i915_guc_slpc_balancer, and i915_guc_slpc_dcc.
Each of these can take the values: "default", "enabled", or "disabled"
v1: update for SLPC v2015.2.4
dfps and turbo merged and renamed "gtperf"
ibc split out and renamed "balancer"
Avoid magic numbers (Jon Bloomfield)
v2-v3: Rebase.
v5: Moved slpc_enable_disable_set and slpc_enable_disable_get to
intel_slpc.c. s/slpc_enable_disable_get/intel_slpc_task_status
and s/slpc_enable_disable_set/intel_slpc_task_control. Prepared
separate functions to update the task status only in the SLPC
shared memory. Passing dev_priv as parameter.
v6: Rebase. s/slpc_param_show|write/slpc_task_param_show|write.
Moved functions to intel_slpc.c. RPM Get/Put added before setting
parameters and sending RESET event explicitly. (Sagar)
v7: Rebase.
Signed-off-by: Tom O'Rourke
Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble
Cc: Chris Wilson
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen
Cc: Radoslaw Szwichtenberg
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko
Cc: Sujaritha Sundaresan
Cc: Jeff McGee
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 200
1 file changed, 200 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index ff90577..d646a04 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -2580,6 +2580,203 @@ static const struct file_operations
i915_guc_log_relay_fops = {
.release = i915_guc_log_relay_release,
};
+static const char *slpc_task_status_stringify(int state)
+{
+ const char *str = NULL;
+
+ switch (state) {
+ case SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DEFAULT:
+ str = "default\n";
no \n please
+ break;
+
+ case SLPC_PARAM_TASK_ENABLED:
+ str = "enabled\n";
+ break;
+
+ case SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DISABLED:
+ str = "disabled\n";
+ break;
+
+ default:
+ str = "unknown\n";
+ break;
+ }
+
btw, stringify_* functions can be as simple as:
switch(state)
{
case A:
return "A";
case B:
return "B";
default:
return "";
}
+ return str;
+}
+
+static int slpc_task_status_show(struct seq_file *m,
+u32 enable_id,
+u32 disable_id)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = m->private;
+ struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = &dev_priv->guc.slpc;
+ const char *status = NULL;
+ u64 val;
+ int ret;
+
+ mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
+ ret = intel_guc_slpc_task_status(slpc, &val, enable_id, disable_id);
s/intel_guc_slpc_task_status/intel_guc_slpc_get_task_status
+ mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
+
+ if (!ret)
+ status = slpc_task_status_stringify(val);
hmm, I'm not sure if status "null" is something that user want to see
if we hit non zero 'ret'
+
+ seq_printf(m, "%s", status);
hmm, as val is returned by guc fw, what if its value will not
match predefined 0..3 ? showing just "unknown" without actual
bad value may be insufficient
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int slpc_task_status_write(struct seq_file *m,
+ const char __user *ubuf,
+ size_t len,
+ u32 enable_id,
+ u32 disable_id)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = m->private;
+ struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = &dev_priv->guc.slpc;
+ int ret = 0;
+ char status[10];
+ u64 val;
+
+ if (len >= sizeof(status))
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ else if (copy_from_user(status, ubuf, len))
+ ret = -EFAULT;
+ else
+ status[len] = '\0';
+
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (!strncmp(status, "default", 7))
+ val = SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DEFAULT;
+ else if (!strncmp(status, "enabled", 7))
+ val = SLPC_PARAM_TASK_ENABLED;
+ else if (!strncmp(status, "disabled", 8))
+ val = SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DISABLED;
+ else
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
+ ret = intel_guc_slpc_task_control(slpc, val, enable_id, disable_id);
+ mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int slpc_gtperf_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
+{
+ return slpc_task_status_show(m,
+SLPC_PARAM_TASK_ENABLE_GTPERF,
+SLPC_PARAM_TASK_DISABLE_GTPERF);
+}
+
+static int i915_guc_slpc_gtperf_open(struct inode *inode, struct file
*file)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = inode->i_private;
+
+ return single_open(file, slpc_gtperf_show, dev_priv);
+}
+
+stati
