Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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,

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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 >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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... > >>>

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

> 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

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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 >>

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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 >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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: -

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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

[RFC PATCH v2 0/1] of: easier debugging for node life cycle issues

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