On 01/23/18 04:11, Michael Ellerman wrote:

Wolfram Sang [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hi Frank,

quoted

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