Re: [PATCHv3 3/4] coresight: etm4x: Add support to enable ETMv4.2

[Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>]

On 1/18/2019 5:52 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> SDM845 has ETMv4.2 and can use the existing etm4x driver.
> But the current etm driver checks only for ETMv4.0 and
> errors out for other etm4x versions. This patch adds this
> missing support to enable SoC's with ETMv4x to use same
> driver by checking only the ETM architecture major version
> number.
>
> Without this change, we get below error during etm probe:
>
> / # dmesg | grep etm
> [    6.660093] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7040000.etm failed with error -22
> [    6.666902] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7140000.etm failed with error -22
> [    6.673708] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7240000.etm failed with error -22
> [    6.680511] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7340000.etm failed with error -22
> [    6.687313] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7440000.etm failed with error -22
> [    6.694113] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7540000.etm failed with error -22
> [    6.700914] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7640000.etm failed with error -22
> [    6.707717] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7740000.etm failed with error -22
>
> With this change, etm probe is successful:
>
> / # dmesg | grep coresight
> [    6.659198] coresight-etm4x 7040000.etm: CPU0: ETM v4.2 initialized
> [    6.665848] coresight-etm4x 7140000.etm: CPU1: ETM v4.2 initialized
> [    6.672493] coresight-etm4x 7240000.etm: CPU2: ETM v4.2 initialized
> [    6.679129] coresight-etm4x 7340000.etm: CPU3: ETM v4.2 initialized
> [    6.685770] coresight-etm4x 7440000.etm: CPU4: ETM v4.2 initialized
> [    6.692403] coresight-etm4x 7540000.etm: CPU5: ETM v4.2 initialized
> [    6.699024] coresight-etm4x 7640000.etm: CPU6: ETM v4.2 initialized
> [    6.705646] coresight-etm4x 7740000.etm: CPU7: ETM v4.2 initialized
>
> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>   drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 2 +-
>   drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h | 2 +-
>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c
> index 53e2fb6e86f6..93d5f1f3145e 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c
> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ static void etm4_os_unlock(struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata)
>   
>   static bool etm4_arch_supported(u8 arch)
>   {
> -	switch (arch) {
> +	switch (arch >> 4) {


While this looks good, from what it looks like arch is a combination of 
major version
minor version. So, will it be better to masks, and shifts macros instead 
of a magic
number shift.
But, frankly it's upto Mathieu to decide the readability of this. So, I 
leave it to him.

Thanks
Vivek

>   	case ETM_ARCH_V4:
>   		break;
>   	default:
> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h
> index 52786e9d8926..05d4bd330881 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h
> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h
> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
>   #define ETM_MAX_RES_SEL			16
>   #define ETM_MAX_SS_CMP			8
>   
> -#define ETM_ARCH_V4			0x40
> +#define ETM_ARCH_V4			0x4
>   #define ETMv4_SYNC_MASK			0x1F
>   #define ETM_CYC_THRESHOLD_MASK		0xFFF
>   #define ETM_CYC_THRESHOLD_DEFAULT       0x100

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