Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:35:47 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To:     Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>
Cc:     linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Adrien Thierry <athierry@redhat.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
        Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Phil Elwell <phil@raspberrypi.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] staging: vc04: Drop custom logging
Message-ID: <1d54715d-25f9-4937-bdff-de0136c95fe8@kadam.mountain>
References: <20230913185528.770634-1-umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230913185528.770634-1-umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:25:24AM +0530, Umang Jain wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This series attempts to restart the discussion on custom logging used
> in VC04. In the last feedback gathered in [1] it seems that the logging
> would rather be moved to use dynamic debug. The series tries to move
> in that direction.
> 
> The elephant in the room is the ability of turning on/off log levels,
> which this series just drops. Compensated by a crude strings
> ("error", "warning", "info"... etc) for easier grepping.
> 
> The log category are also just strings (which probably can be transformed
> to dynamic debug class names moving forwards?).
> 
> To move forwards, I would like feedback on the broader direction.
> There are couple of TODOs in each of the patch (summarised in commit
> messages) which require case-by-case discussion.
> 
> Additional high-level questions to move forwards:
> 1. Is loss of log levels by moving to dynamic debug, is actually a
>    concern? Is dynamic debug a valid replacement?

Dynamic debug is honestly going to be an improvement.  I guess, Greg and
I said this back in Jan.

> 2. Whether debugfs should be dropped as well, found vestigial in [2]

Yes. The "vchiq/log" should be removed.  Ideally as part of this
patchset so it's easier to understand.

> 3. whether vchiq_log_trace() should actually be tracing support for VC04

That can be done later if people want.  No need to discuss it now.

regards,
dan carpenter