| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2023 05:19:57 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Ryan McCann <quic_rmccann@...cinc.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.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 07/07/2023 03:16, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>
>
> On 7/6/2023 5:07 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Actually, I asked Ryan to fix the indent here in the same patch as he
> was touching this code anyway.
>
> So you would prefer thats left untouched?
Yes. The current one was definitely better than splitting in the middle
of a statement.
>
>>> /* 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists