[PATCH v7 2/8] ath10k: provide firmware crash info via debugfs

[Ben Greear]

On 08/20/2014 07:19 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> writes:
>
>> On 08/20/2014 12:29 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> + /* Gather dbg-log */ + dump_tlv = (struct ath10k_tlv_dump_data
>>>>>> *)(buf + sofar); + dump_tlv->type =
>>>>>> cpu_to_le32(ATH10K_FW_CRASH_DUMP_DBGLOG); + dump_tlv->tlv_len =
>>>>>> cpu_to_le32(sizeof(crash_data->dbglog_entry_data));
>>>>> Hmm should this really be sizeof()? Not next_idx (which
>>>>> effectively defines number of bytes of the dbglog)?
>>>> I haven't tried decoding this yet, but we may need to know the
>>>> next_idx to decode this properly.
>>> I really don't like the idea of having untested code in ath10k.
>>> Buggy code is okay (preferably document the known bugs when
>>> submitting code), but untested code is not.
>>
>> It would be quite a waste of time to keep re-writing a user-space dump
>> tool while the patch set is in this much churn, I think.
>
>> It's not like ath10k is going to blow up, but maybe the decode is less
>> useful in that we cannot actually get a useful debuglog decode until
>> the problem is resolved. We get zero firmware dbglog messages
>> currently, so nothing is lost.
>
> Of course ath10k won't blow up, but every patch and every line of code
> increases the maintenance cost. For example, if I had known that the
> dbglog dump in your patchset doesn't work at all, I would have dropped
> it immediately and saved a lot of time of everyone's time, especially
> mine.
>
> So next time you send me untested code PLEASE clearly mention that. I
> assume that the developer has tested the submitted code well enough that
> it really works. Hoping it to work is not enough! Unless you are
> Johannes, Linus or Davem :)

I know that I mentioned I have not actually written the decode tool.
I did test my original patches to make sure they properly dumped
a data file and did not crash the kernel or otherwise muck up the
driver.

And, actually I think I could make a decode tool able to decode the
dbglog as written, especially if the next-idx is included...the messages
are normalized enough that I can just read ints until I find something
that is a legit start of message.  Not super clean, but kernel would
remain simpler.

I think we would make more progress if we were slightly less picky on
style issues and details for patches, and just make more
improvements after the initial patches go in.  It would certainly
make it easier to do things like write and test and improve the decode
tool.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com