[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220818174441.arh7otvrkzg5uk3s@CAB-WSD-L081021.sigma.sbrf.ru>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:44:23 +0000
From: Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"jic23@...nel.org" <jic23@...nel.org>,
"linux@...musvillemoes.dk>" <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
kernel <kernel@...rdevices.ru>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] regmap: introduce value tracing for regmap bulk
operations
Hello Mark,
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 04:43:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 02:49:20PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> > I don't care much about regmap as a MMIO backend, but it strikes me as
> > odd that you end up with multiple ways of logging the same stuff (with
> > a memcpy in the middle of it).
>
> > Why can't this be done with a small amount of trace post-processing?
>
> At the minute we don't put the actual data for the bulk transfers into
> the trace so the information simply isn't there.
What do you think about the patch? Can we use the separate trace event
class, or do we have to add these tracepoints to some existing class, like
regmap_block?
Appreciate any thoughts and feedback.
--
Thank you,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists