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

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2023-05-24 12:18:09, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/24/2023 2:48 AM, Marijn Suijten 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
> 
> Yes, not contiguous otherwise we could have just had them in one big range.
> 
> > clear headers anyway rather than dumping the range parent_blk_base to
> > max(parent_blk_base+len, parent_blk_base+sblk_base+sblk_len...).
> > 
> > - Marijn
> 
> When I meant sub-block support to devcoredump, this is how I visualize 
> them to be printed
> 
> =========================SSPP xxx =======================
> =========================SSPP_CSC =======================(for SSPP_xxx)
> =========================SSPP_QSEED =====================(for SSPP_xxx)

Yeah something along those lines, though I don't really like the `(for
SSPP_xxx)` suffix which we should either drop entirely and make the
"heading" less of a "heading"

========================= SSPP xxx =======================
...
------------------------- SSPP_CSC -----------------------
...
------------------------- SSPP_QSEED ---------------------
...

And/or inline the numbers:

========================= SSPP xxx =======================
...
----------------------- SSPP_xxx_CSC ---------------------
...
---------------------- SSPP_xxx_QSEED --------------------
...

Either works, or any other pattern in the title (e.g `SSPP xxx: CSC`)
that clearly tells the blocks and sub-blocks apart.

- Marijn