On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:40:24PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2013/10/9 <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > We may want to know what kind of watermarks got computed and programmed > > into the hardware. Using tracepoints is much leaner than debug prints. > > > > Also add trace call for the watermark state we read out of the > > hardware during init, though I;m not sure there's any way to see that > > trace as the events aren't available until the module is loaded. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I never worked with these things before, but on a quick look it all sounds sane. > > Acked-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> I'm not sold on tracepoints being the right tool here. DRM_DEBUG_KMS probably isn't it, since that would needlessly spam dmesg since it's way too coarse. But the kernel has this neat dynamic debug subsystem, which has the upshot that it's all nicely inline with the other modeset debug noise in dmesg. I'll punt on this for now. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
