Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panfrost:report the full raw fault information instead

[Steven Price]

On 17/06/2021 07:20, ChunyouTang wrote:
> From: ChunyouTang <tangchunyou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> of the low 8 bits.

Please don't split the subject like this. The first line of the commit
should be a (very short) summary of the patch. Then a blank line and
then a longer description of what the purpose of the patch is and why
it's needed.

Also you previously had this as part of a series (the first part adding
the "& 0xFF" in the panfrost_exception_name() call). I'm not sure we
need two patches for the single line, but as it stands this patch
doesn't apply.

Also I'm still not receiving any emails from you directly (only via the
list), so it's possible I might have missed something you sent.

Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: ChunyouTang <tangchunyou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c
> index 1fffb6a0b24f..d2d287bbf4e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static irqreturn_t panfrost_gpu_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
>  		address |= gpu_read(pfdev, GPU_FAULT_ADDRESS_LO);
>  
>  		dev_warn(pfdev->dev, "GPU Fault 0x%08x (%s) at 0x%016llx\n",
> -			 fault_status & 0xFF, panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status & 0xFF),
> +			 fault_status, panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status & 0xFF),
>  			 address);
>  
>  		if (state & GPU_IRQ_MULTIPLE_FAULT)
>