Re: [PATCH 4/5] coresight: Add better messages for coresight_timeout
From: Mathieu Poirier
Date: Wed Jun 01 2016 - 11:15:22 EST
On 1 June 2016 at 03:34, Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 31/05/16 18:58, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 12:57 +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> When we encounter a timeout waiting for a status change via
>>> coresight_timeout, the caller always print the offset which
>>> was tried. This is pretty much useless as it doesn't specify
>>> the bit position we wait for. Also, one needs to lookup the
>>> TRM to figure out, what was wrong. This patch changes all
>>> such error messages to print something more meaningful.
>> Perhaps consistently using
>> dev_err(dev, "timeout while waiting for %s\n", "<foo>");
>> could make the object code a bit smaller.
>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etb10.c
>>> @@ -184,8 +184,7 @@ static void etb_disable_hw(struct etb_drvdata
>>> if (coresight_timeout(drvdata->base, ETB_FFCR, ETB_FFCR_BIT, 0))
>>> - "timeout observed when probing at offset %#x\n",
>>> - ETB_FFCR);
>>> + "timeout while waiting for completion of Manual
>> "timeout while waiting for %s\n",
>> "completion of Manual Flush");
>> but that depends on how many of these coresight
>> files are compiled and linked.
> Or we could move the timeout message to coresight_timeout(). The only
> disadvantage is
> if a caller is OK with silent timeouts. How about :
> int coresight_timeout(void *base, u32 offset, u32 bit, u32 val, char *info)
> where the message can be suppressed if info == NULL ?
> Mathieu, your thoughts ?
I'd rather keep things separate.
>> There is a while/when usage difference in some of
>> the output messages.
> Right, I will fix them. This was a merged version of individual patches,
> the changes.