From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDB1C6377E for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 23:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 927B36128E for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 23:29:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 927B36128E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GVWxf0NlVz30Mp for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:29:10 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=ozlabs.org header.i=@ozlabs.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201707 header.b=FA5Ym+Gs; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=ozlabs.org (client-ip=2401:3900:2:1::2; helo=ozlabs.org; envelope-from=jk@ozlabs.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=ozlabs.org header.i=@ozlabs.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201707 header.b=FA5Ym+Gs; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GVWx23CdJz2yLK; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:28:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GVWwx0lfNz9sV8; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:28:32 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1626910114; bh=GoKHY31AUl/WmIbrWvstEpC6nwWnu/aYYQ5eVh88pmQ=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FA5Ym+Gs70MifbuFfkuM8sCA6mPXNMq4AZgTsP743W2eJikolBaegABYpt7ziNCX0 YpbZ741z/evpIlqL0SNxLPw0AS5PEC0fMzizB5sG4pk7CscPu4KzNFlHg1OHNrKZwo wkOPAxugW5aO8km38+a3cmYqrWg5x5Da6PW4D9IHTXK0qi46nu/zj+Eg6OtIo7yQeR hOB+s8+o5p9RGW7ebPM2LQ/Qt305lDSU6dZ4v5aV6gUSCyVklP9F+G9wHbnK+pD+x8 oDIXfKB6LbMNExnTOnUJCeyIPs0tXjbw4k8UR1Jj7/LBdpIh+7w23MeXjc573Os2zg VNwEbve7Xomag== Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fsi: occ: Add dynamic debug to dump command and response From: Jeremy Kerr To: Eddie James , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 07:28:27 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20210716151850.28973-4-eajames@linux.ibm.com> References: <20210716151850.28973-1-eajames@linux.ibm.com> <20210716151850.28973-4-eajames@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, jdelvare@suse.com, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, linux@roeck-us.net, linux-fsi@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" Hi Eddie, > Use the dynamic branching capability of the dynamic debug subsystem > to dump the command and response with the correct OCC device name. Would this be better done with a tracepoint? Given it's a fairly well-defined pair of events, and there's data to dump in both cases. We have a couple of existing tracepoionts in the core code if that helps... Cheers, Jeremy