lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/13] coresight: Add support for CLAIM tag protocol
From
Date
On 15/08/18 00:20, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:41:50PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Add support for the CLAIM tag protocol for negotiating the
>> device ownership with other agents trying to use the coresight
>> component (internal vs. external). The Coresight architecture
>> specifies CLAIM tags (managed via CLAIMSET CLAIMCLR registers)
>> to negotiate the ownership of the device. PSCI recommends the
>> reservation of the bits in CLAIM tags for self-hosted and external
>> debug use. This patch implements the protocol for claiming
>> the devices before they are actually used.
>
> I think the first paragraph of the cover letter (minus the reference to the
> documentation since you've included it below) would be perfect instead of the
> above.
>
>>
>> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-priv.h | 7 +++
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/coresight.h | 20 +++++++
>> 3 files changed, 112 insertions(+)

>> +void coresight_disclaim_device_unlocked(void __iomem *base)
>> +{
>> +
>> + if (coresight_is_claimed_self_hosted(base))
>> + coresight_clear_claim_tags(base);
>> + else
>> + /*
>> + * Either we or the external agent doesn't follow
>> + * the protocol.
>> + */
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>
> When writing "... or the external agent doesn't follow the protocol", I deduce
> that an external agent would have trampled our claim tag. I think this needs
> to be said explicitly in the comment.
>

>> +static inline int coresight_claim_device_unlocked(void __iomem *base)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int coresight_claim_device(void __iomem *base)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Returning 0 would give a caller the impression the operation has succeeded when
> in fact it didn't. I think we should return an error code here.


Agreed on all points, will respin.

Suzuki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-16 17:48    [W:0.087 / U:1.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site