Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] [PATCH] quick_dump: A dump utility different than reg_dumper

2013-01-19 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 08:05:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:46:05PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > intel_reg_dumper is cool. However, doing bit decoding and dealing with > > moving registers from generation to generation (and in some cases just > > steppings) becomes

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] [PATCH] quick_dump: A dump utility different than reg_dumper

2012-09-27 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:40:26AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:51:01 +0200 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:58:37PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > On 2012-09-22 11:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > >And a quick comment on your approach here: I'm not t

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] [PATCH] quick_dump: A dump utility different than reg_dumper

2012-09-26 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:51:01 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:58:37PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On 2012-09-22 11:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > >And a quick comment on your approach here: I'm not too sure > > >whether the > > >file-base register block approach scales, re

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] [PATCH] quick_dump: A dump utility different than reg_dumper

2012-09-26 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:58:37PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On 2012-09-22 11:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >And a quick comment on your approach here: I'm not too sure > >whether the > >file-base register block approach scales, respectively why exactly > >this is > >better than frobbing the reg_du

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] [PATCH] quick_dump: A dump utility different than reg_dumper

2012-09-22 Thread Ben Widawsky
On 2012-09-22 11:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:46:05PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: intel_reg_dumper is cool. However, doing bit decoding and dealing with moving registers from generation to generation (and in some cases just steppings) becomes a bit of a burden over time. I

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] [PATCH] quick_dump: A dump utility different than reg_dumper

2012-09-22 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:46:05PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > intel_reg_dumper is cool. However, doing bit decoding and dealing with > moving registers from generation to generation (and in some cases just > steppings) becomes a bit of a burden over time. It's also not completely > necessary when

[Intel-gfx] [RFC] [PATCH] quick_dump: A dump utility different than reg_dumper

2012-09-21 Thread Ben Widawsky
intel_reg_dumper is cool. However, doing bit decoding and dealing with moving registers from generation to generation (and in some cases just steppings) becomes a bit of a burden over time. It's also not completely necessary when doing the not-so-uncommon diff against some other BIOS debug. While