On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 20:37, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 -------------------- > > ... I'd prefer this format. It eases grepping. > > > > 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 -- With best wishes Dmitry
