All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K. Poulose)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCHv2 1/4] arm-cci: Refactor CCI PMU code
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:17:36 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <563A4BC0.60009@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151104180139.GF23860@leverpostej>

On 04/11/15 18:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:05:23PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> This patch refactors the CCI PMU driver code a little bit to
>> make it easier share the code for enabling/disabling the CCI
>> PMU. This will be used by the hooks to work around the special cases
>> where writing to a counter is not always that easy(e.g, CCI-500)
>>


>> +static void cci_pmu_disable(struct pmu *pmu)
>> +{
>> +	struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu = to_cci_pmu(pmu);
>> +	struct cci_pmu_hw_events *hw_events = &cci_pmu->hw_events;
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&hw_events->pmu_lock, flags);
>> +	__cci_pmu_disable();
>> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hw_events->pmu_lock, flags);
>> +}
>
> Why are these moved up here? It makes the diff harder to read, and it
> doesn't seem necessary in the context of this patch.
>
> Would they otherwise have to move in a later patch? It might be better
> to move them when required (without changes).

These will be used later in cci500 specific routines to write the counter.
I can move them later.


>> -	if (unlikely(!pmu_is_valid_counter(cci_pmu, idx)))
>> +	if (unlikely(!pmu_is_valid_counter(cci_pmu, idx))) {
>>   		dev_err(&cci_pmu->plat_device->dev, "Invalid CCI PMU counter %d\n", idx);
>> -	else
>> -		pmu_write_register(cci_pmu, value, idx, CCI_PMU_CNTR);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +	__pmu_write_counter(cci_pmu, idx, value);
>>   }
>
> While I don't disagree with the new structure of this function, the
> reorganisation wasn't necessary. We only need to substitute
> __pmu_write_counter in place of pmu_write_register.

We will add a check in Patch4/4 to override the default method with a
CCI_PMU model specific method.

>
> I'm happy with splitting out the lower level accessors, but I think the
> additional reshuffling makes this patch overly complex. I'd prefer the
> minial facotring out if possible.

Ok, I will rearrange the patches to make the changes readable.

Thanks
Suzuki

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, punit.agrawal@arm.com,
	arm@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] arm-cci: Refactor CCI PMU code
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:17:36 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <563A4BC0.60009@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151104180139.GF23860@leverpostej>

On 04/11/15 18:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:05:23PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> This patch refactors the CCI PMU driver code a little bit to
>> make it easier share the code for enabling/disabling the CCI
>> PMU. This will be used by the hooks to work around the special cases
>> where writing to a counter is not always that easy(e.g, CCI-500)
>>


>> +static void cci_pmu_disable(struct pmu *pmu)
>> +{
>> +	struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu = to_cci_pmu(pmu);
>> +	struct cci_pmu_hw_events *hw_events = &cci_pmu->hw_events;
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&hw_events->pmu_lock, flags);
>> +	__cci_pmu_disable();
>> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hw_events->pmu_lock, flags);
>> +}
>
> Why are these moved up here? It makes the diff harder to read, and it
> doesn't seem necessary in the context of this patch.
>
> Would they otherwise have to move in a later patch? It might be better
> to move them when required (without changes).

These will be used later in cci500 specific routines to write the counter.
I can move them later.


>> -	if (unlikely(!pmu_is_valid_counter(cci_pmu, idx)))
>> +	if (unlikely(!pmu_is_valid_counter(cci_pmu, idx))) {
>>   		dev_err(&cci_pmu->plat_device->dev, "Invalid CCI PMU counter %d\n", idx);
>> -	else
>> -		pmu_write_register(cci_pmu, value, idx, CCI_PMU_CNTR);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +	__pmu_write_counter(cci_pmu, idx, value);
>>   }
>
> While I don't disagree with the new structure of this function, the
> reorganisation wasn't necessary. We only need to substitute
> __pmu_write_counter in place of pmu_write_register.

We will add a check in Patch4/4 to override the default method with a
CCI_PMU model specific method.

>
> I'm happy with splitting out the lower level accessors, but I think the
> additional reshuffling makes this patch overly complex. I'd prefer the
> minial facotring out if possible.

Ok, I will rearrange the patches to make the changes readable.

Thanks
Suzuki


  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-04 18:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-20 13:05 [PATCHv2 0/4] arm-cci500: Workaround pmu_event_set_period Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-20 13:05 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-20 13:05 ` [PATCHv2 1/4] arm-cci: Refactor CCI PMU code Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-20 13:05   ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-11-04 18:01   ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-04 18:01     ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-04 18:17     ` Suzuki K. Poulose [this message]
2015-11-04 18:17       ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-20 13:05 ` [PATCHv2 2/4] arm-cci: Get the status of a counter Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-20 13:05   ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-11-04 18:06   ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-04 18:06     ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-04 18:20     ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-11-04 18:20       ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-20 13:05 ` [PATCHv2 3/4] arm-cci: Add routines to enable/disable all counters Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-20 13:05   ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-11-04 18:28   ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-04 18:28     ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-05 10:14     ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-11-05 10:14       ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-11-05 10:19       ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-11-05 10:19         ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-11-05 17:27       ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-05 17:27         ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-05 17:52         ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-11-05 17:52           ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-20 13:05 ` [PATCHv2 4/4] arm-cci500: Work around PMU counter writes Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-20 13:05   ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-22 17:00 ` [PATCHv2 0/4] arm-cci500: Workaround pmu_event_set_period Olof Johansson
2015-10-22 17:00   ` Olof Johansson
2015-10-22 21:46   ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-10-22 21:46     ` Suzuki K. Poulose

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=563A4BC0.60009@arm.com \
    --to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.