All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: mathieu.poirier@linaro.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mike.leach@linaro.org,
	coresight@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/14] coresight: tpiu: Use coresight device access abstraction
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 12:36:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <02f28b5f-d3d6-755f-066d-88b90aa35eef@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200729210105.GC3073178@xps15>

On 07/29/2020 10:01 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 06:20:29PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> TPIU driver access the device before the coresight device
>> is registered. In other words, before the drvdata->csdev
>> is valid. Thus, we need to make sure that the csdev_access
>> is valid for both the invocations. Switch to using the
>> csdev_access directly instead of relying on availability
>> of drvdata->csdev.
> 
> I'm not sure all of the above is needed and based on the wording I could easily
> see this patch being selected for stable backport, which would be a mistak.
> 
> The gist of this patch is that we are moving to the access abstraction and the
> changelog should reflect that.

True, I will make it something like :

"Prepare the TPIU driver to make use of the CoreSight device access
abstraction layer. The driver touches the device even before the
coresight device is registered. Thus we could be accessing the
devices without a csdev. As we are about to use the abstraction
layer for accessing the device, pass in the access directly
to avoid having to deal with the un-initialised csdev.


>>   
>>   static int tpiu_disable(struct coresight_device *csdev)
>>   {
>> -	struct tpiu_drvdata *drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(csdev->dev.parent);
>> -
>>   	if (atomic_dec_return(csdev->refcnt))
>>   		return -EBUSY;
>>   
>> -	tpiu_disable_hw(drvdata);
>> +	tpiu_disable_hw(&csdev->access);
>>   
>>   	dev_dbg(&csdev->dev, "TPIU disabled\n");
>>   	return 0;
>> @@ -152,7 +148,7 @@ static int tpiu_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id *id)
>>   	desc.access.base = base;
> 
> Any reason for introducing the above in patch 02?  I would have done that as
> part of this patch...  Also part of this patch I would remove drvdata::base
> since it is no longer needed.

The patch 02 is not touching how the individual drivers access the
device, yet. It only sets the way by introducing the layer. As per
the proposed change, this is a preparation of the TPIU driver, so
that we can convert the generic helper functions ( coresight_timeout())
more easily and keep the patch 05 easier for review (just like the Patch
4, which prepares the ETM driver).

Cheers
Suzuki


> 
> I'm out of time for today - I will continue tomorrow.
> 
> Regards,
> Mathieu
> 
>>   
>>   	/* Disable tpiu to support older devices */
>> -	tpiu_disable_hw(drvdata);
>> +	tpiu_disable_hw(&desc.access);
>>   
>>   	pdata = coresight_get_platform_data(dev);
>>   	if (IS_ERR(pdata))
>> -- 
>> 2.24.1
>>


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: mathieu.poirier@linaro.org
Cc: coresight@lists.linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mike.leach@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/14] coresight: tpiu: Use coresight device access abstraction
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 12:36:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <02f28b5f-d3d6-755f-066d-88b90aa35eef@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200729210105.GC3073178@xps15>

On 07/29/2020 10:01 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 06:20:29PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> TPIU driver access the device before the coresight device
>> is registered. In other words, before the drvdata->csdev
>> is valid. Thus, we need to make sure that the csdev_access
>> is valid for both the invocations. Switch to using the
>> csdev_access directly instead of relying on availability
>> of drvdata->csdev.
> 
> I'm not sure all of the above is needed and based on the wording I could easily
> see this patch being selected for stable backport, which would be a mistak.
> 
> The gist of this patch is that we are moving to the access abstraction and the
> changelog should reflect that.

True, I will make it something like :

"Prepare the TPIU driver to make use of the CoreSight device access
abstraction layer. The driver touches the device even before the
coresight device is registered. Thus we could be accessing the
devices without a csdev. As we are about to use the abstraction
layer for accessing the device, pass in the access directly
to avoid having to deal with the un-initialised csdev.


>>   
>>   static int tpiu_disable(struct coresight_device *csdev)
>>   {
>> -	struct tpiu_drvdata *drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(csdev->dev.parent);
>> -
>>   	if (atomic_dec_return(csdev->refcnt))
>>   		return -EBUSY;
>>   
>> -	tpiu_disable_hw(drvdata);
>> +	tpiu_disable_hw(&csdev->access);
>>   
>>   	dev_dbg(&csdev->dev, "TPIU disabled\n");
>>   	return 0;
>> @@ -152,7 +148,7 @@ static int tpiu_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id *id)
>>   	desc.access.base = base;
> 
> Any reason for introducing the above in patch 02?  I would have done that as
> part of this patch...  Also part of this patch I would remove drvdata::base
> since it is no longer needed.

The patch 02 is not touching how the individual drivers access the
device, yet. It only sets the way by introducing the layer. As per
the proposed change, this is a preparation of the TPIU driver, so
that we can convert the generic helper functions ( coresight_timeout())
more easily and keep the patch 05 easier for review (just like the Patch
4, which prepares the ETM driver).

Cheers
Suzuki


> 
> I'm out of time for today - I will continue tomorrow.
> 
> Regards,
> Mathieu
> 
>>   
>>   	/* Disable tpiu to support older devices */
>> -	tpiu_disable_hw(drvdata);
>> +	tpiu_disable_hw(&desc.access);
>>   
>>   	pdata = coresight_get_platform_data(dev);
>>   	if (IS_ERR(pdata))
>> -- 
>> 2.24.1
>>


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-31 11:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-22 17:20 [RFC PATCH 00/14] coresight: Support for ETMv4.4 system instructions Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 01/14] coresight: etm4x: Skip save/restore before device registration Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-29 18:01   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-29 18:01     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-30 14:45     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-30 14:45       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 02/14] coresight: Introduce device access abstraction Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-24  4:40   ` kernel test robot
2020-07-29 19:56   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-29 19:56     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-30 14:58     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-30 14:58       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-29 20:56   ` kernel test robot
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 03/14] coresight: tpiu: Use coresight " Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-29 21:01   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-29 21:01     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-31 11:36     ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2020-07-31 11:36       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 04/14] coresight: etm4x: Free up argument of etm4_init_arch_data Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-30 17:31   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-30 17:31     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-31  9:39     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-31  9:39       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 05/14] coresight: Convert coresight_timeout to use access abstraction Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-30 18:00   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-30 18:00     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 06/14] coresight: Convert claim and lock operations to use access wrappers Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-27  6:04   ` kernel test robot
2020-07-27 17:56   ` kernel test robot
2020-07-28  9:47     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-30 19:54   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-30 19:54     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-31  9:46     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-31  9:46       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 07/14] coresight: etm4x: Always read the registers on the host CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-30 19:56   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-30 19:56     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 08/14] coresight: etm4x: Convert all register accesses Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-30 20:20   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-30 20:20     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-31  9:49     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-31  9:49       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 09/14] coresight: etm4x: Add sysreg access helpers Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-30 21:41   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-30 21:41     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-31  9:51     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-31  9:51       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 10/14] coresight: etm4x: Define DEVARCH register fields Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 11/14] coresight: etm4x: Detect system register access support Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 12/14] coresight: etm4x: Refactor probing routine Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 13/14] coresight: etm4x: Add support for sysreg only devices Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 14/14] dts: bindings: coresight: ETMv4.4 system register access only units Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-22 17:20   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-23 17:27   ` Rob Herring
2020-07-23 17:27     ` Rob Herring
2020-07-29 17:20   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-29 17:20     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-07-30 16:38     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-07-30 16:38       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-08-10 20:14       ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-08-10 20:14         ` Mathieu Poirier

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=02f28b5f-d3d6-755f-066d-88b90aa35eef@arm.com \
    --to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=coresight@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
    --cc=mike.leach@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.