| Message ID | 1507071341-23126-1-git-send-email-sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 10/4/2017 4:25 AM, Sujaritha Sundaresan wrote: > Unifying the various seq_puts messages to the simplest one > > v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha) > > v3: Unify seq_puts messages, Re-factoring code as per review (Michal) > > v4: Rebase > > v5: Separated into a separate patch > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com> > Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com> > Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > index 847f8e8..53e40dd 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > @@ -1616,7 +1616,7 @@ static int i915_fbc_status(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private); > > if (!HAS_FBC(dev_priv)) { > - seq_puts(m, "FBC unsupported on this chipset\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); > return 0; > } > > @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int i915_ring_freq_table(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) > unsigned int max_gpu_freq, min_gpu_freq; > > if (!HAS_LLC(dev_priv)) { > - seq_puts(m, "unsupported on this chipset\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); > return 0; > } > > @@ -2654,7 +2654,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data) > bool enabled = false; > > if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv)) { > - seq_puts(m, "PSR not supported\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); > return 0; > } > > @@ -2807,7 +2807,7 @@ static int i915_runtime_pm_status(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) > struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; > > if (!HAS_RUNTIME_PM(dev_priv)) > - seq_puts(m, "Runtime power management not supported\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); > > seq_printf(m, "GPU idle: %s\n", yesno(!dev_priv->gt.awake)); > seq_printf(m, "IRQs disabled: %s\n", > @@ -3683,7 +3683,7 @@ static void drrs_status_per_crtc(struct seq_file *m, > mutex_unlock(&drrs->mutex); > } else { > /* DRRS not supported. Print the VBT parameter*/ > - seq_puts(m, "\tDRRS Supported : No"); > + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); There is corresponding "Yes" seq_puts above. Please update that as well. Commit subject looks little ambiguous. can we say unify seq_puts messages for feature support. > } > seq_puts(m, "\n"); > }
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:13:12 +0200, Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> wrote: > > > On 10/4/2017 4:25 AM, Sujaritha Sundaresan wrote: >> Unifying the various seq_puts messages to the simplest one >> >> v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha) >> >> v3: Unify seq_puts messages, Re-factoring code as per review (Michal) >> >> v4: Rebase >> >> v5: Separated into a separate patch >> >> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> >> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com> >> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com> >> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 10 +++++----- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> index 847f8e8..53e40dd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> @@ -1616,7 +1616,7 @@ static int i915_fbc_status(struct seq_file *m, >> void *unused) >> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private); >> if (!HAS_FBC(dev_priv)) { >> - seq_puts(m, "FBC unsupported on this chipset\n"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int i915_ring_freq_table(struct seq_file >> *m, void *unused) >> unsigned int max_gpu_freq, min_gpu_freq; >> if (!HAS_LLC(dev_priv)) { >> - seq_puts(m, "unsupported on this chipset\n"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -2654,7 +2654,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file >> *m, void *data) >> bool enabled = false; >> if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv)) { >> - seq_puts(m, "PSR not supported\n"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -2807,7 +2807,7 @@ static int i915_runtime_pm_status(struct >> seq_file *m, void *unused) >> struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; >> if (!HAS_RUNTIME_PM(dev_priv)) >> - seq_puts(m, "Runtime power management not supported\n"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); This one also does not fit into unified "early return" pattern. >> seq_printf(m, "GPU idle: %s\n", yesno(!dev_priv->gt.awake)); >> seq_printf(m, "IRQs disabled: %s\n", >> @@ -3683,7 +3683,7 @@ static void drrs_status_per_crtc(struct seq_file >> *m, >> mutex_unlock(&drrs->mutex); >> } else { >> /* DRRS not supported. Print the VBT parameter*/ >> - seq_puts(m, "\tDRRS Supported : No"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); > There is corresponding "Yes" seq_puts above. Please update that as well. > Commit subject looks little ambiguous. can we say unify seq_puts > messages for feature support. >> } >> seq_puts(m, "\n"); >> }
On 10/03/2017 11:13 PM, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote: > > > On 10/4/2017 4:25 AM, Sujaritha Sundaresan wrote: >> Unifying the various seq_puts messages to the simplest one >> >> v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha) >> >> v3: Unify seq_puts messages, Re-factoring code as per review (Michal) >> >> v4: Rebase >> >> v5: Separated into a separate patch >> >> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> >> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com> >> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com> >> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 10 +++++----- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> index 847f8e8..53e40dd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> @@ -1616,7 +1616,7 @@ static int i915_fbc_status(struct seq_file *m, >> void *unused) >> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private); >> if (!HAS_FBC(dev_priv)) { >> - seq_puts(m, "FBC unsupported on this chipset\n"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int i915_ring_freq_table(struct >> seq_file *m, void *unused) >> unsigned int max_gpu_freq, min_gpu_freq; >> if (!HAS_LLC(dev_priv)) { >> - seq_puts(m, "unsupported on this chipset\n"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -2654,7 +2654,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct >> seq_file *m, void *data) >> bool enabled = false; >> if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv)) { >> - seq_puts(m, "PSR not supported\n"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -2807,7 +2807,7 @@ static int i915_runtime_pm_status(struct >> seq_file *m, void *unused) >> struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; >> if (!HAS_RUNTIME_PM(dev_priv)) >> - seq_puts(m, "Runtime power management not supported\n"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >> seq_printf(m, "GPU idle: %s\n", yesno(!dev_priv->gt.awake)); >> seq_printf(m, "IRQs disabled: %s\n", >> @@ -3683,7 +3683,7 @@ static void drrs_status_per_crtc(struct >> seq_file *m, >> mutex_unlock(&drrs->mutex); >> } else { >> /* DRRS not supported. Print the VBT parameter*/ >> - seq_puts(m, "\tDRRS Supported : No"); >> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); > There is corresponding "Yes" seq_puts above. Please update that as well. Will do. > Commit subject looks little ambiguous. can we say unify seq_puts > messages for feature support. Yes, I will clarify the commit message. >> } >> seq_puts(m, "\n"); >> } > Thanks for the review, Regards, Sujaritha
On 10/04/2017 04:39 AM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:13:12 +0200, Sagar Arun Kamble > <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/4/2017 4:25 AM, Sujaritha Sundaresan wrote: >>> Unifying the various seq_puts messages to the simplest one >>> >>> v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha) >>> >>> v3: Unify seq_puts messages, Re-factoring code as per review (Michal) >>> >>> v4: Rebase >>> >>> v5: Separated into a separate patch >>> >>> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> >>> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com> >>> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com> >>> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 10 +++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >>> index 847f8e8..53e40dd 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >>> @@ -1616,7 +1616,7 @@ static int i915_fbc_status(struct seq_file *m, >>> void *unused) >>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private); >>> if (!HAS_FBC(dev_priv)) { >>> - seq_puts(m, "FBC unsupported on this chipset\n"); >>> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int i915_ring_freq_table(struct >>> seq_file *m, void *unused) >>> unsigned int max_gpu_freq, min_gpu_freq; >>> if (!HAS_LLC(dev_priv)) { >>> - seq_puts(m, "unsupported on this chipset\n"); >>> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> @@ -2654,7 +2654,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct >>> seq_file *m, void *data) >>> bool enabled = false; >>> if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv)) { >>> - seq_puts(m, "PSR not supported\n"); >>> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> @@ -2807,7 +2807,7 @@ static int i915_runtime_pm_status(struct >>> seq_file *m, void *unused) >>> struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; >>> if (!HAS_RUNTIME_PM(dev_priv)) >>> - seq_puts(m, "Runtime power management not supported\n"); >>> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); > > This one also does not fit into unified "early return" pattern. Will revert this one. > >>> seq_printf(m, "GPU idle: %s\n", yesno(!dev_priv->gt.awake)); >>> seq_printf(m, "IRQs disabled: %s\n", >>> @@ -3683,7 +3683,7 @@ static void drrs_status_per_crtc(struct >>> seq_file *m, >>> mutex_unlock(&drrs->mutex); >>> } else { >>> /* DRRS not supported. Print the VBT parameter*/ >>> - seq_puts(m, "\tDRRS Supported : No"); >>> + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); >> There is corresponding "Yes" seq_puts above. Please update that as well. >> Commit subject looks little ambiguous. can we say unify seq_puts >> messages for feature support. >>> } >>> seq_puts(m, "\n"); >>> } Thanks for the review. Regards, Sujaritha
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c index 847f8e8..53e40dd 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c @@ -1616,7 +1616,7 @@ static int i915_fbc_status(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = node_to_i915(m->private); if (!HAS_FBC(dev_priv)) { - seq_puts(m, "FBC unsupported on this chipset\n"); + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); return 0; } @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int i915_ring_freq_table(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) unsigned int max_gpu_freq, min_gpu_freq; if (!HAS_LLC(dev_priv)) { - seq_puts(m, "unsupported on this chipset\n"); + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); return 0; } @@ -2654,7 +2654,7 @@ static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data) bool enabled = false; if (!HAS_PSR(dev_priv)) { - seq_puts(m, "PSR not supported\n"); + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); return 0; } @@ -2807,7 +2807,7 @@ static int i915_runtime_pm_status(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; if (!HAS_RUNTIME_PM(dev_priv)) - seq_puts(m, "Runtime power management not supported\n"); + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); seq_printf(m, "GPU idle: %s\n", yesno(!dev_priv->gt.awake)); seq_printf(m, "IRQs disabled: %s\n", @@ -3683,7 +3683,7 @@ static void drrs_status_per_crtc(struct seq_file *m, mutex_unlock(&drrs->mutex); } else { /* DRRS not supported. Print the VBT parameter*/ - seq_puts(m, "\tDRRS Supported : No"); + seq_puts(m, "not supported\n"); } seq_puts(m, "\n"); }
Unifying the various seq_puts messages to the simplest one v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha) v3: Unify seq_puts messages, Re-factoring code as per review (Michal) v4: Rebase v5: Separated into a separate patch Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)