Re: [PATCH V2 06/15] coresight: tmc: making prepare/unprepare functions generic

[Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>]

On 12/04/16 18:54, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Dealing with HW related matters in tmc_read_prepare/unprepare
> becomes convoluted when many cases need to be handled distinctively.
>
> As such moving processing related to HW setup to individual driver
> files and keep the core driver generic.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> ---
>   drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etf.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etr.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++-
>   drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc.c     | 55 +++++-----------------
>   drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc.h     |  8 ++--
>   4 files changed, 117 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>

> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etr.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etr.c
> index 910d6f3b7d26..495540e9064d 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etr.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etr.c
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static void tmc_etr_dump_hw(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>   		drvdata->buf = drvdata->vaddr;
>   }
>
> -void tmc_etr_disable_hw(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
> +static void tmc_etr_disable_hw(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>   {
>   	CS_UNLOCK(drvdata->base);
>
> @@ -126,3 +126,43 @@ static const struct coresight_ops_sink tmc_etr_sink_ops = {
>   const struct coresight_ops tmc_etr_cs_ops = {
>   	.sink_ops	= &tmc_etr_sink_ops,
>   };
> +
> +int tmc_read_prepare_etr(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	/* config types are set a boot time and never change */
> +	if (drvdata->config_type != TMC_CONFIG_TYPE_ETR)
> +		return -EINVAL;

...

> +
> +int tmc_read_unprepare_etr(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	/* config types are set a boot time and never change */
> +	if (drvdata->config_type != TMC_CONFIG_TYPE_ETR)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +

For both cases above should we WARN_ON_ONCE() if we encounter such a case ?

Irrespective of that,

Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>