From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:53:44 -0800 Message-ID: <533b27ea-f1e4-edab-0a35-a4304483d026@gmail.com> References: <20180121143117.19805-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> <20180122114948.mm5mg6zqw3hmjj4o@katana> <874lncwza1.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <874lncwza1.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Ellerman , Wolfram Sang Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang , Rob Herring , Geert Uytterhoeven , Tyrel Datwyler , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 01/23/18 04:11, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Wolfram Sang writes: > >> Hi Frank, >> >>> Please go back and read the thread for version 1. Simply resubmitting a >>> forward port is ignoring that whole conversation. >>> >>> There is a lot of good info in that thread. I certainly learned stuff in it. >> >> Yes, I did that and learned stuff, too. My summary of the discussion was: >> >> - you mentioned some drawbacks you saw (like the mixture of trace output >> and printk output) >> - most of them look like addressed to me? (e.g. Steven showed a way to redirect >> printk to trace) >> - you posted your version (which was, however, marked as "not user friendly" >> even by yourself) >> - The discussion stalled over having two approaches >> >> So, I thought reposting would be a good way of finding out if your >> concerns were addressed in the discussion or not. If I overlooked >> something, I am sorry for that. Still, my intention is to continue the >> discussion, not to ignore it. Because as it stands, we don't have such a >> debugging mechanism in place currently, and with people working with DT >> overlays, I'd think it would be nice to have. > > Yeah I agree with all of that, I didn't think there were really any > concerns left outstanding. These trace points are very useful, I've > twice added them to a kernel to debug something, so it would be great > for them to be in mainline. > > cheers > Yes, I believe there are concerns outstanding. I'll try to read through the whole thread today to make sure I'm not missing anything. -Frank