On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:29:15AM +0100, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:07:52 -0800 > Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > > This is my second attempt at winning approval for the series. First one > > was: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1493131/ > > > > In spending the time to rework this tool, I've begun to lose my belief > > in some of the original motivations I had. Even if you don't want to > > review, but just like (or dislike) what you see, I'd appreciate such > > comments. > > I'd like to see it land in i-g-t. Having the regs defined in a text or > xml file is an improvement over what we have today, and is easier to > extend. At first the advantage of reg_dumper was that it parsed out > the bitfields of the various regs. But we didn't keep up with that, > and also haven't kept up with the regs on new platforms as well as we > could. Text files would make that easier, and xml files might bring > back the bit field parsing, which would be extra nice. Completely agree. For me the big improvement would be being able to use the bspec register names or our internal approximation thereof rather than having to loop up the actual addresses every time. Having the name database available in python should make building integrated little snippets to parse traces which are also python accessible. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
