[PATCH 1/2] drm/msm/dpu: drop SSPP register dumpers

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 12:48, Marijn Suijten
<marijn.suijten at somainline.org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-05-23 13:01:13, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/21/2023 10:21 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > Drop SSPP-specifig debugfs register dumps in favour of using
> > > debugfs/dri/0/kms or devcoredump.
> > >
> >
> > I did see another series which removes src_blk from the catalog (I am
> > yet to review that one) . Lets assume that one is fine and this change
> > will be going on top of that one right?
>
> It replaces src_blk with directly accessing the blk (non-sub-block)
> directly, because they were overlapping anyway.
>
> > The concern I have with this change is that although I do agree that we
> > should be in favor of using debugfs/dri/0/kms ( i have used it a few
> > times and it works pretty well ), devcoredump does not have the support
> > to dump sub-blocks . Something which we should add with priority because
> > even with DSC blocks with the separation of enc/ctl blocks we need that
> > like I wrote in one of the responses.
> >
> > So the "len" of the blocks having sub-blocks will be ignored in favor of
> > the len of the sub-blocks.
>
> The sub-blocks are not always contiguous with their parent block, are
> they?  It's probably better to print the sub-blocks separately with
> clear headers anyway

I hope this is what Abhinav meant.

> rather than dumping the range parent_blk_base to
> max(parent_blk_base+len, parent_blk_base+sblk_base+sblk_len...).
>
> - Marijn
>
> > If we remove this without adding that support first, its a loss of debug
> > functionality.
> >
> > Can we retain these blocks and remove dpu_debugfs_create_regset32 in a
> > different way?
>
> <snip>



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry