Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:49:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180122114948.mm5mg6zqw3hmjj4o@katana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ac4f02e1-6d49-158a-4fb6-56ac0d474a44@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1091 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]