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

[Frank Rowand]

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