Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Frank, > >> Please go back and read the thread for version 1. Simply resubmitting a >> forward port is ignoring that whole conversation. >> >> There is a lot of good info in that thread. I certainly learned stuff in it. > > Yes, I did that and learned stuff, too. My summary of the discussion was: > > - you mentioned some drawbacks you saw (like the mixture of trace output > and printk output) > - most of them look like addressed to me? (e.g. Steven showed a way to redirect > printk to trace) > - you posted your version (which was, however, marked as "not user friendly" > even by yourself) > - The discussion stalled over having two approaches > > So, I thought reposting would be a good way of finding out if your > concerns were addressed in the discussion or not. If I overlooked > something, I am sorry for that. Still, my intention is to continue the > discussion, not to ignore it. Because as it stands, we don't have such a > debugging mechanism in place currently, and with people working with DT > overlays, I'd think it would be nice to have. Yeah I agree with all of that, I didn't think there were really any concerns left outstanding. These trace points are very useful, I've twice added them to a kernel to debug something, so it would be great for them to be in mainline. cheers
