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
