On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 07:48:18PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 07:09:02PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 08:05:34PM +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Unify all debug prints during link training to include information > > > on both the encoder and the LTTPR. We unify the format to something > > > like "[ENCODER:1:FOO][LTTPR 1] Something something". Though not > > > sure if those brackets around the dp_phy just make it look like > > > line noise? I'll accept suggestions on better formatting. > > > > > > I'm slightly on the fence about also including the connector, > > > but technically only the DPRX is the SST connector (ie. > > > intel_dp->attached_connector). I suppose you could think of it > > > as the branch device/whatever in the topology, and we're training > > > the link leading to it. So that could argue for its inclusion. > > > But it's all getting a bit long alrady, so not going to do it > > > I think. > > > > Imo including the connector info eventually would be good to be able to > > match these lines with those only showing the connector, or connectors > > in i915_display_info etc. > > You're probably right. I was just looking at a dmesg wondering which > connector it's training there... > > Although with MST it of course doesn't match up with anything > that the user thinks as a connected connector. So a bit annoying. > And using a single MST connector wouldn't really lead to a > coherent debug message either since there could be many MST > connectors active on the same link :/ As a compromise I kept the SST connector name in the final passed/failed debug print. That was the only place where we printed it previously as well. Not ideal perhaps but at least it's something. Series pushed. Thanks for the review. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
