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

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 20:37, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/29/2023 2:36 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > 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"
> >
>
> I wrote that "for SSPP_xxx" to explain the idea, ofcourse it wont be
> part of the print itself.
>
> Without that, it matches what you have shared below.
>
>
> > ========================= SSPP xxx =======================
> > ...
> > ------------------------- SSPP_CSC -----------------------
> > ...
> > ------------------------- SSPP_QSEED ---------------------
> > ...
> >
> > And/or inline the numbers:
> >
> > ========================= SSPP xxx =======================
> > ...
> > ----------------------- SSPP_xxx_CSC ---------------------
> > ...
> > ---------------------- SSPP_xxx_QSEED --------------------
> > ...

I'd prefer this format. It eases grepping.

> >
>
> sure this is also fine with me.
>
> > Either works, or any other pattern in the title (e.g `SSPP xxx: CSC`)
> > that clearly tells the blocks and sub-blocks apart.
> >
> > - Marijn



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry