Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915/guc: More debug print updates - GuC reg capture

2023-02-06 Thread John Harrison
On 2/4/2023 00:19, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote: So i do have one request - but its a nit - for the following case, should it be a guc_warn instead of a guc_dbg? (last hunk in this patch) "No register capture node found for 0x%04X / 0x%08X\n", ce->guc_id.id, ce->lrc.lrca);" Di

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915/guc: More debug print updates - GuC reg capture

2023-02-04 Thread Teres Alexis, Alan Previn
So i do have one request - but its a nit - for the following case, should it be a guc_warn instead of a guc_dbg? (last hunk in this patch) "No register capture node found for 0x%04X / 0x%08X\n", ce->guc_id.id, ce->lrc.lrca);" Otherwise LGTM, Reviewed-by: Alan Previn On Thu, 2023

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915/guc: More debug print updates - GuC reg capture

2023-02-02 Thread John . C . Harrison
From: John Harrison Update a bunch more debug prints to use the new GT based scheme. Signed-off-by: John Harrison --- .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c| 51 --- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_cap