[PATCH] YABEL debug flags

[Myles Watson]

Since we already have CONFIG_YABEL_DEBUG_FLAGS, there doesn't seem to be a
need for another config variable.

This patch:
1. Changes CONFIG_DEBUG to DEBUG in util/x86emu/*
2. Makes DEBUG depend on CONFIG_YABEL_DEBUG_FLAGS being nonzero

Boot tested with CONFIG_YABEL_DEBUG_FLAGS 0 and nonzero.

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[e-mail]>

Thanks,
Myles

[ron minnich]

Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich <[e-mail]>

[Myles Watson]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, ron minnich <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich <[e-mail]>

Rev 5131.

Thanks,
Myles

[Joseph Smith]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:08:40 -0700, Myles Watson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, ron minnich <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich <[e-mail]>
>
> Rev 5131.

Awsome. Thanks Myles, I would have done this myself but I am at work.

-- 
Thanks,
Joseph Smith
Set-Top-Linux
www.settoplinux.org

[Joseph Smith]

On 02/19/2010 02:28 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:08:40 -0700, Myles Watson<[e-mail]>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, ron minnich<[e-mail]>  wrote:
> > > Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich<[e-mail]>
> >
> > Rev 5131.
>
> Awsome. Thanks Myles, I would have done this myself but I am at work.

Yup that did the trick, YABEL is debugging again :-)

-- 
Thanks,
Joseph Smith
Set-Top-Linux
www.settoplinux.org

[Stefan Reinauer]

On 2/19/10 8:08 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, ron minnich <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
> Rev 5131.
>
> Thanks,
> Myles

Oh shoot. This broke all the patches I am just preparing... Oh well..
It'll have to wait until next week then.



-- 
coresystems GmbH . Brahmsstr. 16 . D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
      Tel.: [phone] . Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]  . http://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg . HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer . Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866

[Myles Watson]

> Oh shoot. This broke all the patches I am just preparing... Oh well..
> It'll have to wait until next week then.

Since I broke everything anyway, you could just revert the whole thing.  I
liked the idea of CONFIG_DEBUG going back to DEBUG, though.

 

Thanks,

Myles

[Stefan Reinauer]

On 2/19/10 8:42 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
> > Oh shoot. This broke all the patches I am just preparing... Oh well..
> > It'll have to wait until next week then.
>
> Since I broke everything anyway, you could just revert the whole
> thing.  I liked the idea of CONFIG_DEBUG going back to DEBUG, though.

Yes, so do I... But making it depending on YABEL_DEBUG_FLAGS may not be
the right thing, unless the code is also modified to check for the bits
in  yabel debug flags explicitly.

-- 
coresystems GmbH . Brahmsstr. 16 . D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
      Tel.: [phone] . Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]  . http://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg . HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer . Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866

[Myles Watson]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Reinauer <[e-mail]>wrote:
> On 2/19/10 8:42 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
> > Oh shoot. This broke all the patches I am just preparing... Oh well..
> > It'll have to wait until next week then.
>
> Since I broke everything anyway, you could just revert the whole thing.  I
> liked the idea of CONFIG_DEBUG going back to DEBUG, though.
>
> Yes, so do I... But making it depending on YABEL_DEBUG_FLAGS may not be the
> right thing, unless the code is also modified to check for the bits in
> yabel debug flags explicitly.

I'm not sure why a non-zero check isn't good enough.  I haven't used the
YABEL debug flags very much.

Thanks,
Myles

[Stefan Reinauer]

On 2/19/10 8:53 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Reinauer
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> On 2/19/10 8:42 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > Oh shoot. This broke all the patches I am just preparing... Oh
> >     well.. It'll have to wait until next week then.
> >
> > Since I broke everything anyway, you could just revert the whole
> >     thing.  I liked the idea of CONFIG_DEBUG going back to DEBUG,
> >     though.
>
> Yes, so do I... But making it depending on YABEL_DEBUG_FLAGS may
>     not be the right thing, unless the code is also modified to check
>     for the bits in  yabel debug flags explicitly.
>
> I'm not sure why a non-zero check isn't good enough.  I haven't used
> the YABEL debug flags very much.

Because you'd suddenly get IO debug outputs whether you specify
YABEL_DEBUG_CPU_PREFETCH or YABEL_DEBUG_IO :-)

Well, no need to worry for now... I think it's fine. I'll prepare my
patch because that takes care of this in a place or two....

[Myles Watson]

> Yes, so do I... But making it depending on YABEL_DEBUG_FLAGS may not be the
> > right thing, unless the code is also modified to check for the bits in
> > yabel debug flags explicitly.
>
> I'm not sure why a non-zero check isn't good enough.  I haven't used the
> YABEL debug flags very much.
>
> Because you'd suddenly get IO debug outputs whether you specify
> YABEL_DEBUG_CPU_PREFETCH or YABEL_DEBUG_IO :-)

Yep.  That's bad.
> Well, no need to worry for now... I think it's fine. I'll prepare my patch
> because that takes care of this in a place or two....

Sounds good.

Thanks,
Myles