Re: [v3 3/5] coresight: add support for debug module

[Leo Yan <leo.yan-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:16:45AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:

[...]

> >>In my opinion booting with "nohlt" on the cmd line is sufficient to
> >>determine if we should use the driver or not.  That way we also avoid
> >>declaring yet another sysfs flag, something I really want to avoid.
> >
> >Agree.
> >
> >I did spend some time to implement coresight core framework to support
> >debug module, you could see it on:http://termbin.com/k2fj; this also
> >gives me more sense which is better choice. If declaring another sysfs
> >flag to support debug module in coresight framework, this lets the
> >codes and interfaces more complex. E.g. for best fit into coresight
> >framework, finally we can get 8 sysfs nodes for 8 CPUs in system; so
> >that means we need enable every CPU one by one.
> 
> Having a node for each debug area indeed doesn't look good. We could
> as will stick a single node under /sys/kernel/debug/ which would enable/disable
> the debug component.
> 
> I am OK with it being tied to nohlt. In that case we will have to add
> a Kconfig dependency on GENERIC_IDLE_POLL_SETUP (though it is selected
> by default on ARM/ARM64). Parsing the boot command line for nohlt doesn't
> look like a good idea. We may have to figure out a way to do that.

I remembered that we can use QoS constraint for CPUIdle:
        pm_qos_add_request(pm_qos_req, PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY, 0);

Using this way we can disable all low power states and don't depend on
nohlt anymore.

> Also, please could you add support for building this as a module ? Since it
> doesn't depend on the coresight bus anyway, it should be pretty straight
> forward.

Yeah. Will support module building.

Thanks,
Leo Yan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html