linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] drm/msm/dpu: Refactor printing of main blocks in device core dump

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 7 Jul 2023 03:07:46 +0300
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Ryan McCann <quic_rmccann@...cinc.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
        Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] drm/msm/dpu: Refactor printing of main blocks in
 device core dump

On 06/07/2023 23:48, Ryan McCann wrote:
> Currently, the names of main blocks are hardcoded into the
> msm_disp_snapshot_add_block function rather than using the name that
> already exists in the catalog. Change this to take the name directly from
> the catalog instead of hardcoding it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ryan McCann <quic_rmccann@...cinc.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> index aa8499de1b9f..70dbb1204e6c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
> @@ -899,38 +899,38 @@ static void dpu_kms_mdp_snapshot(struct msm_disp_state *disp_state, struct msm_k
>   
>   	/* dump CTL sub-blocks HW regs info */
>   	for (i = 0; i < cat->ctl_count; i++)
> -		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->ctl[i].len,
> -				dpu_kms->mmio + cat->ctl[i].base, "ctl_%d", i);
> +		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->ctl[i].len, dpu_kms->mmio +
> +					    cat->ctl[i].base, cat->ctl[i].name);

Splitting on the `+' sign is a bad idea. It makes it harder to read the 
code. Please keep the first line as is, it is perfectly fine on its own, 
and do just what you have stated in the commit message: change printed 
block name.

>   
>   	/* dump DSPP sub-blocks HW regs info */
>   	for (i = 0; i < cat->dspp_count; i++)
> -		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->dspp[i].len,
> -				dpu_kms->mmio + cat->dspp[i].base, "dspp_%d", i);
> +		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->dspp[i].len, dpu_kms->mmio +
> +					    cat->dspp[i].base, cat->dspp[i].name);
>   
>   	/* dump INTF sub-blocks HW regs info */
>   	for (i = 0; i < cat->intf_count; i++)
> -		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->intf[i].len,
> -				dpu_kms->mmio + cat->intf[i].base, "intf_%d", i);
> +		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->intf[i].len, dpu_kms->mmio +
> +					    cat->intf[i].base, cat->intf[i].name);
>   
>   	/* dump PP sub-blocks HW regs info */
>   	for (i = 0; i < cat->pingpong_count; i++)
> -		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->pingpong[i].len,
> -				dpu_kms->mmio + cat->pingpong[i].base, "pingpong_%d", i);
> +		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->pingpong[i].len, dpu_kms->mmio +
> +					    cat->pingpong[i].base, cat->pingpong[i].name);
>   
>   	/* dump SSPP sub-blocks HW regs info */
>   	for (i = 0; i < cat->sspp_count; i++)
> -		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->sspp[i].len,
> -				dpu_kms->mmio + cat->sspp[i].base, "sspp_%d", i);
> +		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->sspp[i].len, dpu_kms->mmio +
> +					    cat->sspp[i].base, cat->sspp[i].name);
>   
>   	/* dump LM sub-blocks HW regs info */
>   	for (i = 0; i < cat->mixer_count; i++)
> -		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->mixer[i].len,
> -				dpu_kms->mmio + cat->mixer[i].base, "lm_%d", i);
> +		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->mixer[i].len, dpu_kms->mmio +
> +					    cat->mixer[i].base, cat->mixer[i].name);
>   
>   	/* dump WB sub-blocks HW regs info */
>   	for (i = 0; i < cat->wb_count; i++)
> -		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->wb[i].len,
> -				dpu_kms->mmio + cat->wb[i].base, "wb_%d", i);
> +		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->wb[i].len, dpu_kms->mmio +
> +					    cat->wb[i].base, cat->wb[i].name);
>   
>   	if (cat->mdp[0].features & BIT(DPU_MDP_PERIPH_0_REMOVED)) {
>   		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, MDP_PERIPH_TOP0,
> @@ -944,8 +944,8 @@ static void dpu_kms_mdp_snapshot(struct msm_disp_state *disp_state, struct msm_k
>   
>   	/* dump DSC sub-blocks HW regs info */
>   	for (i = 0; i < cat->dsc_count; i++)
> -		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->dsc[i].len,
> -				dpu_kms->mmio + cat->dsc[i].base, "dsc_%d", i);
> +		msm_disp_snapshot_add_block(disp_state, cat->dsc[i].len, dpu_kms->mmio +
> +					    cat->dsc[i].base, cat->dsc[i].name);
>   
>   	pm_runtime_put_sync(&dpu_kms->pdev->dev);
>   }
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry