From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E68AC7EE23 for ; Tue, 30 May 2023 17:38:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232752AbjE3RiG (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2023 13:38:06 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34544 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232541AbjE3RiF (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2023 13:38:05 -0400 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCBC5A3 for ; Tue, 30 May 2023 10:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0279865.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 34U8aqeb007650; Tue, 30 May 2023 17:37:56 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=qcppdkim1; bh=z9UryKPY++sLkaBIxrTXU+ep6jQ1z+TFu7RofzWPkcA=; b=gEHApG58ZTY+64/99u63+HsYzinHk0w4qcLGoKgy/xAuC12ha2+baeF32qmZw4ZBsDpq HBKhxfJav3sxXvUtsP39BfdKJ4tHffpEzN/UoGOm7AqJMQkDFc5mxaMhRVWL6icj9Dcw SHcUW9Ksu11P0fsnEVXx9GLzLIhQepCqI4yEUrAMNj1BzGE4o8wRC/e3SjtWCQCdaAHH Fj4p2J4hqKgoR+Rr8Vj0mOWXtgwbvMavzEgkaHL0edfKycasIGmwcgQL9xZbaKgrBRay gg3SJXlolgUcIIOwK/J8fS+w2UqpXiwxxmglaAui7ka6FMvgtTVhULQ1wql3v7q/NKXU 5A== Received: from nalasppmta05.qualcomm.com (Global_NAT1.qualcomm.com [129.46.96.20]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3qw8v4srd9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 May 2023 17:37:55 +0000 Received: from nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com [10.47.209.196]) by NALASPPMTA05.qualcomm.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTPS id 34UHbtiP017023 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 May 2023 17:37:55 GMT Received: from [10.134.70.142] (10.80.80.8) by nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.986.42; Tue, 30 May 2023 10:37:54 -0700 Message-ID: <9001aaaf-778e-5b3c-e87f-2b196d8b62ed@quicinc.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 10:37:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/msm/dpu: drop SSPP register dumpers Content-Language: en-US To: Marijn Suijten CC: Sean Paul , Bjorn Andersson , , Stephen Boyd , , Dmitry Baryshkov , References: <20230521172147.4163085-1-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> <300fc53c-2a58-714c-855a-08a0dbef3ed9@quicinc.com> <6se25tikdg2tkiprz4h4umfta34tc5orddksvwi6woklf7c74k@rbserwp5kt3a> From: Abhinav Kumar In-Reply-To: <6se25tikdg2tkiprz4h4umfta34tc5orddksvwi6woklf7c74k@rbserwp5kt3a> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) To nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: hDsi95Jad4DhLjwACCwN7FQjlS_fIf3J X-Proofpoint-GUID: hDsi95Jad4DhLjwACCwN7FQjlS_fIf3J X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.957,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-05-30_13,2023-05-30_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=462 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2304280000 definitions=main-2305300140 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 5/29/2023 2:36 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote: > On 2023-05-24 12:18:09, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >> >> >> On 5/24/2023 2:48 AM, Marijn Suijten wrote: >>> On 2023-05-23 13:01:13, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/21/2023 10:21 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> Drop SSPP-specifig debugfs register dumps in favour of using >>>>> debugfs/dri/0/kms or devcoredump. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I did see another series which removes src_blk from the catalog (I am >>>> yet to review that one) . Lets assume that one is fine and this change >>>> will be going on top of that one right? >>> >>> It replaces src_blk with directly accessing the blk (non-sub-block) >>> directly, because they were overlapping anyway. >>> >>>> The concern I have with this change is that although I do agree that we >>>> should be in favor of using debugfs/dri/0/kms ( i have used it a few >>>> times and it works pretty well ), devcoredump does not have the support >>>> to dump sub-blocks . Something which we should add with priority because >>>> even with DSC blocks with the separation of enc/ctl blocks we need that >>>> like I wrote in one of the responses. >>>> >>>> So the "len" of the blocks having sub-blocks will be ignored in favor of >>>> the len of the sub-blocks. >>> >>> The sub-blocks are not always contiguous with their parent block, are >>> they? It's probably better to print the sub-blocks separately with >> >> Yes, not contiguous otherwise we could have just had them in one big range. >> >>> clear headers anyway rather than dumping the range parent_blk_base to >>> max(parent_blk_base+len, parent_blk_base+sblk_base+sblk_len...). >>> >>> - Marijn >> >> When I meant sub-block support to devcoredump, this is how I visualize >> them to be printed >> >> =========================SSPP xxx ======================= >> =========================SSPP_CSC =======================(for SSPP_xxx) >> =========================SSPP_QSEED =====================(for SSPP_xxx) > > Yeah something along those lines, though I don't really like the `(for > SSPP_xxx)` suffix which we should either drop entirely and make the > "heading" less of a "heading" > I wrote that "for SSPP_xxx" to explain the idea, ofcourse it wont be part of the print itself. Without that, it matches what you have shared below. > ========================= SSPP xxx ======================= > ... > ------------------------- SSPP_CSC ----------------------- > ... > ------------------------- SSPP_QSEED --------------------- > ... > > And/or inline the numbers: > > ========================= SSPP xxx ======================= > ... > ----------------------- SSPP_xxx_CSC --------------------- > ... > ---------------------- SSPP_xxx_QSEED -------------------- > ... > sure this is also fine with me. > Either works, or any other pattern in the title (e.g `SSPP xxx: CSC`) > that clearly tells the blocks and sub-blocks apart. > > - Marijn