[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yv99E0mrPI0qG66I@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:07:47 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru>
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
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 05:44:23PM +0000, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 04:43:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > 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?
I didn't realise that was even a question, but then there seems to be
some discussion I've not seen given the CCing going on. The biggest
issue is do we even want the overhead but I'll need to find time to look
at this properly.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists