[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c55a34b-c17e-2a62-9989-902ce940dde5@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 12:12:55 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
markgross@...nel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
ashok.raj@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...ts.linux.dev, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
thiago.macieira@...el.com, athenas.jimenez.gonzalez@...el.com,
sohil.mehta@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Implement Array BIST test
On 2/15/23 13:13, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
> And for the last argument, we need to dump the whole 64 bits within "command"
> into trace output .
No, no you don't.
Just split it up in to human-readable logical pieces. You don't need to
dump the whole 'command'. If you want to trace the completion mask,
then extract the mask and print *that* with a proper field name.
I actually really think this tracing should go away, *ESPECIALLY* if you
insist on dumping out raw, non-human-readable MSR values.
I say NAK on the tracing. You haven't convinced me that it's necessary
on top of what we have today (MSR tracing).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists