On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:46:06 -0800
Frank Rowand wrote:
> The point is that using ftrace means there are use cases for the
> debug information where the information will not be available.
Note, this email came out when I was traveling. I'm now looking at the
code and trace events are enabled righ
On 01/25/18 15:53, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 01/25/2018 01:49 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> Hi Wolfram,
>>
>> On 01/25/18 03:03, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:55:13 -0800
>>> Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
Hi Steve,
>>>
Off the top of your head, can you tell me know early
On 01/25/18 15:14, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> This means that ftrace can not be used for the of_node_get(),
>> of_node_put(), and of_node_release() debug info, because
>> these functions are called before early_initcall().
>
> For the record: You can still unbind/bind devices. This is how I
> debug
On 01/25/18 15:12, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Frank,
>
> here seems to be a misunderstanding going on. I don't want to push this
> patch upstream against all odds. I merely wanted to find out what the
> status of this patch is. Because one possibility was that it had just
> been forgotten...
>
>>> So,
On 01/25/2018 01:49 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Wolfram,
>
> On 01/25/18 03:03, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:55:13 -0800
>> Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Steve,
>>
>>>
>>> Off the top of your head, can you tell me know early in the boot
>>> process a trace_event can be called
> This means that ftrace can not be used for the of_node_get(),
> of_node_put(), and of_node_release() debug info, because
> these functions are called before early_initcall().
For the record: You can still unbind/bind devices. This is how I
debugged an issue.
signature.asc
Description: PGP si
Frank,
here seems to be a misunderstanding going on. I don't want to push this
patch upstream against all odds. I merely wanted to find out what the
status of this patch is. Because one possibility was that it had just
been forgotten...
> > So, I thought reposting would be a good way of finding o
Hi Wolfram,
On 01/25/18 03:03, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:55:13 -0800
> Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>
>>
>> Off the top of your head, can you tell me know early in the boot
>> process a trace_event can be called and successfully provide the
>> data to someone trying t
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:55:13 -0800
Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Off the top of your head, can you tell me know early in the boot
> process a trace_event can be called and successfully provide the
> data to someone trying to debug early boot issues?
The trace events are enabled by early_
Hi Steve,
On 01/21/18 06:31, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> I got a bug report for a DT node refcounting problem in the I2C subsystem.
> This
> patch was a huge help in validating the bug report and the proposed solution.
> So, I thought I bring it to attention again. Thanks Tyrel, for the initial
> work!
On 01/21/18 06:31, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> I got a bug report for a DT node refcounting problem in the I2C subsystem.
> This
> patch was a huge help in validating the bug report and the proposed solution.
> So, I thought I bring it to attention again. Thanks Tyrel, for the initial
> work!
>
> Note
On 01/22/18 03:49, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 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
On 01/23/18 04:11, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Wolfram Sang writes:
>
>> 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
Wolfram Sang writes:
> 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 s
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:
-
On 01/21/18 06:31, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> I got a bug report for a DT node refcounting problem in the I2C subsystem.
> This
> patch was a huge help in validating the bug report and the proposed solution.
> So, I thought I bring it to attention again. Thanks Tyrel, for the initial
> work!
>
> Note
I got a bug report for a DT node refcounting problem in the I2C subsystem. This
patch was a huge help in validating the bug report and the proposed solution.
So, I thought I bring it to attention again. Thanks Tyrel, for the initial
work!
Note that I did not test the dynamic updates, only of_node_
17 matches
Mail list logo
