On 01/23/18 04:11, Michael Ellerman wrote: > 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 > Yes, I believe there are concerns outstanding. I'll try to read through the whole thread today to make sure I'm not missing anything. -Frank
