On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 12:48, Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > clear headers anyway I hope this is what Abhinav meant. > rather than dumping the range parent_blk_base to > max(parent_blk_base+len, parent_blk_base+sblk_base+sblk_len...). > > - Marijn > > > If we remove this without adding that support first, its a loss of debug > > functionality. > > > > Can we retain these blocks and remove dpu_debugfs_create_regset32 in a > > different way? > > <snip> -- With best wishes Dmitry
