[RFC PATCH] arm: cti: fix build for cti.h

[RFC PATCH] arm: cti: fix build for cti.h

[dinguyen at opensource.altera.com]

From: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@opensource.altera.com>

Hi,

I would to like check to see if this is right thing to do for cti.h. Our
downstream kernel's PMU support is using cti.h. But I don't see any other
upstream driver using cti.h, so I'm not sure if this file should be removed?

Thanks,

Dinh Nguyen (1):
  arm: cti: fix up cti pmu build

 arch/arm/include/asm/cti.h | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

-- 
Cc: Pratik Patel <pratikp@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
--
2.2.1

[RFC PATCH] arm: cti: fix up cti pmu build

[dinguyen at opensource.altera.com]

From: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@opensource.altera.com>

commit "184901a06a36 ARM: removing support for etb/etm in "arch/arm/kernel/"
removed arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/coresight.h

then

commit "a06ae8609b3d coresight: add CoreSight core layer framework" added
include/linux/coresight.h

Update cti.h to use thew new coresight.h and replace CS_LAR_KEY with
CORESIGHT_UNLOCK.

Signed-off-by: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@opensource.altera.com>
Cc: Pratik Patel <pratikp@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/cti.h | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cti.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cti.h
index 2381199..044fda8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cti.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cti.h
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 #define __ASMARM_CTI_H
 
 #include	<asm/io.h>
-#include	<asm/hardware/coresight.h>
+#include	<linux/coresight.h>
 
 /* The registers' definition is from section 3.2 of
  * Embedded Cross Trigger Revision: r0p0
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ static inline void cti_irq_ack(struct cti *cti)
  */
 static inline void cti_unlock(struct cti *cti)
 {
-	__raw_writel(CS_LAR_KEY, cti->base + LOCKACCESS);
+	__raw_writel(CORESIGHT_UNLOCK, cti->base + LOCKACCESS);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -154,6 +154,6 @@ static inline void cti_unlock(struct cti *cti)
  */
 static inline void cti_lock(struct cti *cti)
 {
-	__raw_writel(~CS_LAR_KEY, cti->base + LOCKACCESS);
+	__raw_writel(~CORESIGHT_UNLOCK, cti->base + LOCKACCESS);
 }
 #endif
-- 
2.2.1

[RFC PATCH] arm: cti: fix build for cti.h

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 06:09:44AM +0000, dinguyen at opensource.altera.com wrote:
> I would to like check to see if this is right thing to do for cti.h. Our
> downstream kernel's PMU support is using cti.h. But I don't see any other
> upstream driver using cti.h, so I'm not sure if this file should be removed?

The file was originally added because there was some pending OMAP code to
make use of it. However, then the upstream OMAP development more or less
stopped and the follow-up patches never came.

I'd vote for removing the file if it's not used in mainline.

Will