Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

[Michael Ellerman]

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