[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180122114948.mm5mg6zqw3hmjj4o@katana>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:49:48 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle
issues
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.
Kind regards,
Wolfram
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists